DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No. CC /10/389 of   25.5.2010  

                                                Decided on: 19.8.2010

Massu Ram s/o Blaki Ram,R/o Village Panjeta, Tehsil & District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.

2.                 Assistant Engineer, Operation Sub Division, Devigarh, Punjab State Power Corporation District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.                                   

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.Inderjit Singh, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.A.S.Chahal, Advocate   

For opposite parties:     Ex-parte.

                                         ORDER

SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                                      Complainant Massu Ram has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against  the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.

2.                                   As per averments made in the complaint the case

of   the complainant is like this:-

                                      That the complainant is a consumer Punjab State Electricity Board having domestic connection running in his name bearing account No.P24BN541825X running under the office of opposite party no.2. That the opposite parties have issued order of assessment vide memo no.134 dated 13.5.2010 regarding above stated account number and an amount of Rs.17290/- has been assessed under Section 135 of Electricity Act,2003 on the basis of that:

“Xow;akbk s fuZNh sko gk e/ fpibh uoh eo fojk ;h”

That the order of assessment has been issued without any basis. No such report of checking has been attached with the order of assessment. That false allegations have been leveled against the complainant in the above statement order of assessment. That no site report has been handed over to the complainant. The signature of the complainant has not been obtained on any such site report. That the meter has been recording normal consumption and there is no variation in consumption recorded by the meter and the complainant has been paying normal bills on the basis of consumption recorded by the meter. That the opposite party no.2 has not given the complainant any information regarding the basis of calculation of the assessment, despite repeated requests made by the complainant in this regard. The amount has been assessed illegally and arbitrarily and against the provisions of regulations. That demand of Rs.17290/- has been raised against the complainant illegally and arbitrary. That the demand raised by the opposite parties is illegal, arbitrary , null and void, ultravirse, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, against the principals of natural justice and against and contrary to the express provisions of the departmental rules, regulations and instructions. Hence this complaint.

3.                                   Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties where in they were directed to put in appearance in the Forum on 1.7.2010 but they having failed to put in appearance were proceeded against exparte.

4.                                   In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 22.8.2009,Ex.C2, copy of demand notice dated 13.5.2010,Ex.C3, copy of checking reports,Exs.C4 & C5.

5.                                   The complainant has not filed the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

6.                                   The whole case of the opposite parties is dependant upon the alleged checking report dated 11.5.2010, Ex. A perusal of the checking report, Ex.C5, indicates that it does not include signatures of either the complainant or his representative. The report has also not been authenticated by any respectable person of the locality to confirm its veracity. Under these circumstances the checking report in its present shape is against the rules and regulations of the opposite parties and it therefore, cannot be relied upon. On this point we are supported by the authority Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot Vs. Sarwan Singh 2008(1) CLT 237.

7.                                   In view of the foregoing discussion we are clearly of the view that the opposite parties have failed to establish their case of theft of electricity on the part of the complainant.

8.                                   As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

                                      File be consigned to the record.

Pronounced.

Dated:19.8.2010.

                                                                             President

                                                                             Member

                                                                             Member