BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/1008 of 22.11.2010 

                                                Decided on:          16.9.2011

Angrej Singh son of Sh.Niranjan Singh resident of House No.24, Street No.2, Vikas Nagar, Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

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

2.                 S.D.O./A.E.E.,Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., North Sub Division, 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.B.LBhardwaj, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          Electricity connection bearing account No.P18CJ450827H is installed in the name of Mahesh Kumar. The complainant is making a use of the said connection  of the house where the said connection is installed. Earlier said Mahesh Kumar was the owner of the house. The average consumption of the aforesaid connection for the period 16.10.2009 to 14.10.2010 has been given by the complainant in the complaint in the tablulated form as under:

Sr.No.         Period                            Units consumed             Amount

i)       16.10.2009 to 12.12.2009                101                                Rs.1470/-

ii)      12.12.2009 to 13.2.2010                  368                                Rs.1440/-

iii)     13.2.2010 to 13.4.2010           298                                Rs.1378/-

iv)     13.4.2010 to 14.6.2010           484                                Rs.2078/-

v)      14.6.2010 to 14.8.2010           973                                Rs.4500/-

vi)     14.8.2010 to 14.10.2010                  360                                Rs.19160/-

2.       On receipt of the bill dated 14.10.2010 complainant approached op no.2 for getting the sme corrected but who refused to do so and rather threatened to disconnect the supply to the electricity connection in case the amountof the bill was not deposited in time. Op no.2 failed to explain the verey basis for having claimed Rs.19108/- for 360 units and therefore the demand made vide the said bill is said to be illegal, which caused the harassment and mental agony to the complainant. 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 to withdraw the bill dated 14.10.2010 and issue the bill afresh in respect of the consumption of the electricity; to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant by way of damages for the harassment and mental agony experied by him at the hands of the ops and also to award him Rs.5000/- as costs of the complaint.

3.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the complaint as the connection has been issued in the name of Mahesh Kumar and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer of the ops under the Act.

4.       It is further averred that the electricity connection bearing account No.45/827 was checked by AEE J.S.Sarna of the North OP Sub Division of the ops alongwith JE Gurbaz Singh on 22.10.2009 and one motor was being run for drawing the water by way of  temporary    connection with the help of a wiere and plug while the construction was under progress which amounted to theft of the energy. The checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant/ his representative but who refused to sign the checking report. A copy of the checking report was given to the complainant/representative.

5.       It is further averred that due to an oversight on the basis of the checking report demnd notice was not given to the complainant. On the internal audit having pointed out the said lapse, ,bill –cum-notice based on the tarrif applicable for temporary  connection was sent vide memo no.865 dated 24.9.2010 for Rs.11828/- to Mahesh Kumar, who failed to prefer any objections. Consequently the amount of the demand notice has been reflected in the subsequent bill dated 14.10.2010. The demand has been raised under the rules and regulations. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.       In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C8 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

7.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of  AEE  Harjiwan Kumar, Ex.R2 the sworn affidavit of JE. Gurbaj Singh alongwith documents,Exs.R3 to R4 and  closed their evidence.

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

 9.      Ex.R3, is the copy of the checking report dated 22.10.2009 to have been got proved by the ops with the assistance of the sworn affidavit,Ex.R1 of AEE Harjiwan Kumar and Ex.R2 of JE Gorbaj Singh of West Commercial Sub Division,P.SPCL Patiala. As a matterof fact the checking was conducted by J.S.Sarna, AEE alongwith JE Gurbaj Singh. As per the checking report a temporary connection was being used for running a motor for drawing the water with the help of a wire and plug in connection with the construction of the building.

10.     Nothing is disclosed in the checking report as to who was the person to whom the temporary supply of the electricity connection was provided from the electricity connection No.45/287. It is also not disclosed from the electricity connection No.45/827.It is also not disclosed as to who was the representative of the complainant/consumer who was present at the time of the checking and also whether he was asked to sign the checking report and if he made a refusal an endorsement in that regard was made on the checking report.

11.     It is also not made out from the checking report as to from which particular place of the electricity connection no.45/827 the temporary supply was given.

12.     We are of the considered view that the checking officials of the ops should have gone deep to ascertain the person to whom the electricity supply was provided temporary by the complainant/ his representative. After all as peer the checking report a lintel was being raised and therefore a number of persons would be present including the owner of the building and therefore, the report must have been got signed by AEE J.S.Sarna and therefore, the person who was making a use of the electricity from the electricity connection of the complainant temporarily. In any case the checking report should have been signed from one or the other person  present at the spot, in the absence of which we are not in a position to accept the checking report.

13.     Here, it is important to note that the checking was conducted on 22.10.2009 and as per the case of the ops no order of assessment was ever passed having raised any demand from the complainant or the original owner of the connection namely Mahesh Kumar and it was only after the internal audit of the ops  have pointed out about the aforesaid unauthorized use of the electricity that memo no.865 dated 24.9.2010 for Rs.11828/-,Ex.R4 was issued.

14.     It was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant has not produced any document to show that he is a consumer of the electricity connection in question nor has he produced the affidavit of Mahesh Kumar in whose favour the electricity connection was issued by the ops and therefore, he could not maintain the complaint.

15.     We have considered the submission. When it is the positive case of the complainant that he is the owner of the house where the electricity was lying installed nd that earlier Mahesh Kumar was the owner of the said house and therefore, he is making a use of the electricity connection in question. It was for the ops to have rebutted the said fact , in the absence of which it would appear that the complainant is making a use of the  electricity connection in question with the consent of the original owner of the premises namely Mahesh Kumar.

16.     As per our discussion made above we are not satisfied about the consumer having allowed anybody to make a use of the electricity by providing a temporary connection for running a tulu pump because of the lack of the requisite evidence to have been led by the ops in this regard and therefore, the demnd raised by the ops vide memo no.865 dated 24.9.2008 can not be up held and the same is hereby sataside. The complaint is accepted accordingly. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case no order as to costs.

Pronounced.

Dated:16.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President