BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/803 of 15.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          24.8.2011

Niranjan Singh S/o Sh.Jethu Ram, R/o Village Hamjhari, Tehsil & District Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,  through its Member Secretary/CMD,The Mall, Patiala.

2.                 Assistant Engineer, Operation Suburban Patran, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patran, District Patiala.

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

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

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

For opposite parties:     Sh.Pawan Puri , Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is the consumer of the domestic electricity connection bearing account No.HF55/1714, the same having not been disclosed in the complaint and the same having been taken from the checking report dated 26.11.2008. The complainant has been making the payment of the charges of the electricity regularly and without any default. The status of the meter has been recorded ‘Ok’ and the seals of the meter were intact.

2.       The ops issued memo no.75 having raised the demand of Rs.20710/- . It is averred that the order of assessment has been passed without any basis. No report of the checking was attached with the same. No checking was conducted by the officials of the ops. No copy of the checking report was handed over to the complainant. Even the signatures of the complainant had not been obtained on the checking report. The complainant has described the demand raised by the ops to be illegal, null and void, arbitrary, ultravirus etc. and approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for quashing the demand raised vide memo no.75 and to award him the compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops.

3.       On notice,  ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea put forth by the ops that the complainant has misrepresented the facts having manipulated the allegations in the complaint. The connection of the complainant was checked by the officers of the ops on 26.11.2008 and the complainant was found committing theft of the energy by by-passing the meter. The checking was made in the presence of the complainant who refused to sign the checking report. A copy of the checking report was delivered to the complainant. On the basis of the checking report memo no.75 dated 20.1.2009 having raised the demand of Rs.20710/- was issued against the complainant. The complainant, however, failed to deposit the amount or raise any objections and rather sought time to deposit the amount which was allowed but even then the complainant failed to deposit the amount after having availed of a reasonable time. Thereafter, the amount was raised in the bi-monthly bill of the complainant. The demand has been raised as per the rules i.e. Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.       In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the document,Ex.C2 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

5.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel tendered in evidence,Ex.R1, the reply filed to the complaint in the form of the affidavit, Ex.R2 the sworn affidavit of JE Gurjant Singh of op no.2 alongwith documents,Exs.R3 to R5 and closed their evidence.

6.       The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

7.       Ex.R3, is the copy of the checking report dated 26.11.2008 as got proved by the ops with the assistance of the sworn affidavit,Ex.R2 of JE Gurjant Singh who had conducted the checking of the electricity connection of the complainant on 26.11.2008. The checking is stated to have been made in the presence of the complainant who signed the checking report. As per the checking report, the complainant was found committing theft of the energy by way of tapping the main service line away from the meter by way of using 2KW heater and 1KW submersible motor.

8.       On the basis of the checking report the complainant was sent the demand of Rs.20710/- vide memo no.75 dated 20.1.2009(Copy Ex.R4) which was admittedly received by the complainant.

9.       It was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant failed to raise any objections against the demand of Rs.20710/- whereby he was found having a connected load of 3.00KW as against the sanctioned load of 2.6KW and thus, having an excess load of 2.740KW.He also placed reliance on the citation Uttari Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. Versus Karam Chand 2010(2)CLT 3 , of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for the observations, “if the respondent was aggrieved with the provisional assessment made by the Assessing Officer, it was open to him to file objection and eventually to move the Appellate Authority and Statutory Body, constituted under the Act. The notice, imposing penalty was also acknowledged by respondent. We do not feel impressed about any action resorted to by the respondent challenging either the alleged inspection or imposition of penalty, as required under the Act. The finding recorded by State Commission, as such, ignoring provisions of Electricity Act which the consumer was required to follow in case aggrieved, was not sustainable”

10.     On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that on the one hand, it is the plea taken up by the ops in the written statement that the complainant refused to sign the checking report, on the other hand, in Ex.R2, the sworn affidavit of JE Gurjant Singh, it is deposed that the complainant had signed the checking report and that a copy of the checking report was delivered to the complainant. It was submitted that as a matter of fact no checking was made in the presence of the complainant.

11.     We have considered the submissions. The complainant admittedly received the demand notice,Ex.C2, vide memo no.75 dated 20.1.2009, but the complainant failed to raise any objections against the same before the competent authority under the Electricity Act 2003 and remained silent for a period of about 8 months, after the passing of which the complainant brought this complaint having challenged the demand. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the plea of the ops qua the evidence led by them that the complainant was found committing theft of the energy having tapped the service line away from the meter and making a use of 2KW heater and 1KW submersible motor and consequently, we do not find any fault in the procedure adopted by the ops in having served the complainant with the demand notice,Ex.R4 as held in the case of the citation 2010(2)CLT 3 (Supra).Thus, it would appear that there are not merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:24.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President