EFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/800 of 15.9.2010

                                                Decided on:          13.9.2011

Surjit Singh s/o Wirsa Singh R/o House No.52, Harkrishan Colony, Rajpura District Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

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

2.                 Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., West Division, Rajpura Distt. 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.Dhiraj Puri, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.Pawan Puri, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection bearing account No.P31F AF 340420L installed at the residence of the complainant. The complainant has been paying the charges of the electricity regularly.

2.       On 6.9.2010, the JE of op no.2 approached the complainant and asked the complainant that as per the instructions of the ops he had to install the meter outside the house and accordingly the same was installed out side the house of the complainant. JE Ranbir Singh Saini demanded the money from the complainant but he refused to pay and at this the JE threatened the complainant to face the consequences. The JE had taken the meter alongwith him and disconnected the supply to the electricity connection.

3.       The complainant received memo no.1021dated 8.9.2010 issued by op no.2 making the allegations regarding the theft of the energy by cutting    the terminal box and the winding wire of the phase and he was demanded of Rs.36170/- on account of theft of the energy and Rs.12600/- as the compounding fee payable within 7 days with SDO West of the PSPCL Rajpura.

4.       At this the complainant approached op no.2 and JE Ranbir Singh Saini, advised the complainant to deposit the amount otherwise the supply to the electricity connection will not be restored. The complainant requested the officials in the office of op no.2 to take back the demand being illegal, null and void but they had not paid any heed to the same and rather  forced him  to deposit the amount of Rs.36170/-.

5.       It is averred that the demand raised by the ops is illegal as no opportunity of  hearing was given to the complainant before issuing the demand .The meter was also not got tested from the ME Lab. Accordingly, the complainant has approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to restore the supply to the electricity connection ; to take back the order of provisional assessment; to pay him Rs.25000/- by way of compensation for the harassment, physical and mental torture suffered by him and further to pay him Rs.5500/- as cost of the litigation.

6.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is denied if the JE had visited the house of the complainant on 6.9.2010 or that he had asked the complainant that he had come for getting the meter installed out side his premises. The complainant has manipulated the story in this regard. As a matter of fact, the  officers of the ops had conducted the checking of the electricity connection of the complainant on 8.9.2010 and found the complainant committing theft of the electricity by by-passing the phase of the meter as explained in the checking report. The meter of the complainant was replaced and the same was installed out side the premises of the complainant i.e. on the near by pole of the premises of the complainant. The checking was made in the presence of the consumer and he had counter signed the checking report in token of the correctness there of. The cable being used in committing theft of the energy was removed and got into possession. A checking report was delivered to the complainant at the site. It is further averred that on the basis of the checking memo no.1021 dated 8.9.2010 having raised the demand of Rs.36170/- as the penalty for committing theft of the energy and the compounding fee of Rs.12600/- was issued. The complainant failed to file any objections against the aforesaid demand. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit, Ex.C1, alongwith the documents, Exs.C2 to C3 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

8.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel tendered in evidence, Ex.R1, the reply in the form of the affidavit of Vipin Goyal, SDO, operation of op no.2, Ex.R2 the sworn affidavit of JE Ranbir Saini of op no.2, Ex.R3, the sworn affidavit of Gurmit Singh, Engineer of op no.2 alongwith documents, Exs.R4 to R6 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

9.       The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

10.     Ex.R4, is the copy of checking report dated 6.9.2010, got proved by the complainant with the assistance of JE Ranbir Saini whose sworn affidavit is Ex.R2 and Engineer Gurmit Singh, whose sworn affidavit is Ex.R3, who had conducted the checking. The checking report is shown to have been signed by one Manjit Kaur.As per the checking report the consumer had cut the terminal box of the meter and by passing the winding phase were connected the same with the out going phase wire. MCO No.189/98658 dated 8.9.2010 was issued and the meter was fixed to a pole while the consumer was given the direct supply.

11.     It was submitted by Sh.Dhiraj Puri, the learned counsel for the complainant that whereas Ranbir Saini whose sworn affidavit is Ex.R2 and who had conducted the checking has disclosed the date of checking as 6.9.2010 made vide checking no.3/14 but it is the case of the ops in the written statement filed by them that the checking was conducte4d on 8.9.2010 and therefore, the checking report, Ex.R4 should not be read into evidence.

12.     It was also submitted by Sh.Puri that in Ex.R5, copy of the provisional order of assessment, the date of the checking has been given as 6.9.2010 and in that way ops have not reconciled the date of checking with the plea taken up by them in the written statement.

13.     When it is the catagoric deposition made by JE Ranbir Saini of the sworn affidavit, Ex.R3 that the checking of the connection of the complainant was conducted on 6.9.2010, it would only mean that the date of the checking as 8.9.21010 has been mentioned in the written statement reading the date of the checking as given in the checking report, Ex.R4 as 8.9.2010. We have carefully examined the checking report, Ex.R4. Anybody can mistake   the date as 8.9.2010 because there is no loop made in the digit 6 and the date has been written with a flow. Here, it is also important to note that the complainant has admitted the visit of the JE Ranbir Saini to his house on 6.9.2010 when as per the allegations made in the complaint he got the meter removed from the house to the street and that JE Ranbir Saini had demanded the illegal gratification but he refused to pay the same. Apparently this is a manipulation to have been made by the complainant because it can not be believed that JE Ranbir Singh Saini having made the illegal demand of the money from the complainant, he would not have make a complaint about the same either to the vigilance police or the higher authorities of Mr.Saini. Consequently we are not inclined to accept the plea of the complainant and can not disbelieve the version of the ops simply because the very officer of the ops who filed the complaint ,who was not the checking officer mis read the date of checking as 8.9.2010 in stead of 6.9.2010.The date of checking has been mentioned in the order of provisional assessment,Ex.C2 clearly as 6.9.2010 and deposed as such by the deponent Ranbir Saini of the sworn affidavit,Ex.R2 and Engineer Gurmit Singh of the sworn afidavit,Ex.R3 consistently.

14.     We find ourselves unable to disbelieve the versions of the ops duly corroborated by the testimony of the checking officer JE Ranbir Saini and Engineer Gurmit Singh that the complainant was found committing theft of the energy having by passed the phase having cut the terminal box of the meter as depicted in the checking report, Ex.R4 with a diagram of the meter. Consequently, we do not find any fault in the action taken by the ops in having served the complainant with the order of provisional assessment, Ex.R5 dated 8.9.2010 raised in pursuance of the provisions contained under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 as also the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007.Thus we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:13.9.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President