BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/662 of 11.8.2010 

                                                Decided on:          7.9.2011

Parbal Singh son of Amar Singh, resident of village & PO Duttal, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

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

2.                 Assistant Engineer,(Rural) Sub Division, 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

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     None

For opposite parties:     Sh.Pawan Puri, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          Kirpal Singh S/o Prem Singh since deceased father –in-law of the complainant was the holder of the domestic electricity connection bearing account No.P-72-KF-840050-A.Kirpal Singh died about 8 years before the filing of the complaint and the complainant being his son-in-law has been making a use of the aforesaid electricity connection. He has been paying the charges of the electricity regularly and nothing was due against the complainant.

2.       The officials of the ops approached the complainant and asked him not to use the electricity, the same having been released in favour of his father in law and asked him to transfer the same in his favour. However, the complainant told them that he had been paying the charges of the electricity bills regularly and that it will take time to  obtain the consent of the other legal heirs i.e. the daughters of the deceased but the officials of the ops did not pay any heed to his aforesaid request.

3.       The complainant received memo no.356 dated 25.6.2010 having alleged that the meter was checked on 23.6.2010 and the complainant was found running a 2 BHP submersible motor directly from the LT Line by making a use of the hook(kundi) and he was demanded a sum of Rs.23276/- + Rs.4000/- as the compounding fee.

4.       The complainant has described the said demand to be illegal, null and void as he never committed theft of the electricity as alleged. The premises of the complainant were never inspected by the officials of the ops in his presence or any member of his family. No resident of the village was joined in the checking party.

5.       The complainant approached the ops and requested to withdraw the demand notice and to restore the electricity supply and not to recover the amount of the demand notice but they failed to pay any heed to his request. Accordingly the complainant 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 for declaring the demand made vide memo no.356 dated 25.6.2010 to be illegal, null and void and to direct the ops to restore the supply to the electricity connection of the complainant and the ops be further restrained from recovering the amount  of the aforesaid memo and also to award him a compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops.

6.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version having raised the preliminary objections, interalia, that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act and that he has got no locus standi to file the complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is denied if Kirpal Singh s/o Prem Singh was the father in law of the complainant.No information in this regard was given to the ops by any one. The connection issued in the name of Kirpal Singh s/o Prem Singh was checked by the enforcement officers of the P.S.P.C.L. i.e.Sr.Executive Engineer( Additional SE/Enforcement) alongwith other officials on 23.6.2010 and the complainant was found committing theft of the electricity by by-passing the meter by way of making a hook on the LT line and he was found running a 2BHP submersible motor unauthorisedly with the help of 5-6 meters cable. The said cable was removed by the checking officials and taken into possession. A checking report was prepared and a copy of the checking report was also delivered to the complainant under his signatures.

7.       It is further averred that on the basis of the checking report memo no.356 dated 25.6.2010 was issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act having raised the demand of Rs.23276/-. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8.       In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C3 and the complainant closed his evidence.

9.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the reply filed to the complaint, Ex.R2, the sworn affidavit of Sr.Executive Engineer(Enforcement)Raminderjit Singh, Ex.R3 the sworn affidavit of JE Harwinder Kumar alongwith documents,Exs.R3 to R6 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

10.     The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard learned counsel for the ops none having appeared on behalf of the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.

 11.    Ex.R4, is the copy of the checking report dated 23.6.2010 as got proved by the ops with the help of the sworn affidavits,Exs.R2 of Raminderjit Singh,Sr.Executive Engineer/Enforcement and R3 the sworn affidavit of JE Harwinder Kumar who had conducted the checking in respect of the electricity connection bearing account No.KF84/0050 released in the name of Kirpal Singh s/o Prem Singh and as per the checking report the consumer Parbal Singh was found committing theft of the energy having put a hook with the help of 5-6 meters cable on the LT line, with the help of which he was running 2BHP submersible motor. The report,Ex.R4 is shown to have been signed by the consumer.

12.     On the basis of the aforesaid checking report, the complainant was sent the demand notice,Ex.C2, vide memo no.356 dated 25.6.2010 whereby he was demanded of Rs.23276/- on account of theft of the energy and he was further obliged to deposit Rs.4000/- as the compounding charges to avoid the police action.

13.     It was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant failed to prefer any objections against the order of provisional assessment,Ex.C2 dated 25.6.2010 despite having been advised in this regard vide the demand notice itself. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that the ops have produced in evidence the photographs,Exs.R6 and R7 showing the direct theft of the energy being made from the LT line as also the presence of the consumer at the site. The leaned counsel for the ops also placed reliance upon 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.” 14.     We have considered the submissions and find that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the ops that the complainant was found committing theft of the energy directly from the LT line having put a hook with the help of 5-6 meters cable with the help of which he was running a 2BHP submersible motor and therefore, it would appear that the officials of the ops had taken the right action in having raised the demand vide memo Ex/C2 on account of the theft of the energy, committed by the complainant and consequently, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:7.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President