DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/10/486 of 21.6.2010 Decided on: 20.10.2010 Hans Raj, aged about 29 years s/o Sh.Giani Ram R/o Quarter No.30, Triple Storey, Opp. Children Park Police Line, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Patiala, through its Member Secretary/CMD. 2. A.E.,Civil Lines, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,Model Town, Sub Division 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. Amar Singh, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.C.S.Sidhu , Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Hans Raj 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 of opposite parties within the meaning of Act,1986 being beneficiary. He is using electric connection bearing account No.JR-54/127(Pb-16) . That the complainant has received a notice of provisional order of assessment issued by the opposite party no.2 on 24.5.2010 in which Rs.12,360/- have been demanded on account of theft of energy payable within 7 days from the date of issue of notice, with the further direction to deposit Rs.6000/- as compounding charges. The following charges have been leveled against the complainant:- 1. whNo dhnK ;hbK N?Agov 2. fgZbo pe; dk skbk N[fNnk j?. That the above notice was received by the complainant after lapse of period of notice. He accordingly attended the office of Issuing Authority i.e. AEE, Operation, Civil Lines, P.S.P.C., Model Town, Patiala but he was not given any hearing. That the opposite parties have not conducted any inspection or checking nor have given any checking report as required under regulations. As such, the charge of theft of energy is not sustainable. That the illegal and unwarranted demand of the opposite parties has caused mental agony and great inconvenience to the complainant. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant is not the consumer of opposite parties because meter is not in his name. He is consuming electricity from connection JR54/127 for which he is liable to pay the bill. The complainant was indulging in theft of energy on 6.5.2010 as such notice of assessment was correctly sent to him by the opposite parties to deposit Rs.12360/-.That the complainant was asked to deposit the bill because it was legally sent as per law by the opposite parties. That the connection was checked in the presence of representative of complainant and meter seals and pillar box were found broken which was evidence of theft of energy and it was shown to the representative of the complainant but he refused to sign the checking reports. Opposite parties have demanded the amount which was legally due against the complainant. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in providing electricity and issuance of bills. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The allegation of opposite parties is that the premises of the complainant were checked on 6.5.2010 by the raiding party and on checking found that both meter seals and pillar box were found broken. Now the question arises whether from mere fact that meter seals and pillar box were broken, a case of theft of energy is made out? The answer is certainly not. It was incumbent upon the raiding party to install a parallel meter and should have noted difference in the energy consumed in both meters. Having not done so from the mere fact that seals were tempered with it cannot be said that theft of energy had been committed. The meter was not got checked from M&T Laboratory that it was running slow or was not running properly. In the absence of such evidence it cannot be held that complainant had committed theft of energy. On this point we are supported by the authorities HSWEB (Now HVPN) and others Vs. Bhushan Lal 2007(1) CLT 114 , Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd(HVPN) Vs.Gautam Plastic 2008(1)CLT 522 & DHBVNL Vs. Lakhmi Chand Bansal 2009(1) CLT 489. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions 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. We are also of the clear view that the opposite parties have unnecessarily drawn the complainant into prolonged litigation. 8. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with no order as to costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:20.10.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
