BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 826 of 21.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          9.9.2011

Sukhvinder Singh son of Balwinder Singh, resident of village Tharwa, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala

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

                                      Versus

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

2.                 S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Khanauri, District Sangrur.

                                                                             ----------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

                          The complainant is the holder of the domestic electricity connection bearing account No.P-73BF560486-F. He has been making the payment of the charges of electricity regularly and nothing was due against him. The complainant received the bill dated 27.8.2010 for Rs.22905/- based on sundry charges. The complainant has described the said demand of the bill to be illegal, null and void as no reasons have been given as to how the demand of the sundry charges could be made.

2.       The complainant approached the ops to withdraw the bill in respect of the sundry charges and to rectify the bill for the actual consumption of the electricity but they did not pay any heed to his request and rather threatened to recover the amount of the same from him forcibly. 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 declaring the demand of Rs.22905/- to be illegal , null ad void ; to award him Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for the harassment and inconvenience experienced by him at the hands of the ops and to award him the other relief to which he is entitled.

3.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the connection of the complainant was conducted by the officers of the ops on 10.8.2009 and who found the complainant committing theft of the energy by by-passing the meter from the main PVC connected to the meter and the complainant was having the direct supply from the LT line. The checking was made in the presence of Kulbir Singh a representative of the complainant, who had signed the checking report in token of the correctness there of.

4.       It is further averred that on the basis of the checking report a demand of Rs.18566/- for committing theft of the energy wasraised underSection 135 of the Electricity Act 2003. The complainant failed to prefer any objections against the aforesaid demand and the supply to theelecricity connection of the complainant was disconnected vide PDCO No.124 /67993 dated 1.9.2009. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C5 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

6.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Shashi Bhushan,Additional Assistant Engineer of op no.2 alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R6 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

7.       The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the ops none having having appeared on behalf of the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.

                   It has come to my notice that while making a report on receipt of the complaint, the requisite facts with regard to the jurisdiction are not being taken into account by the Superintendent. He is directed to make a report on examining the contents of the complaint qua the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum.