DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.441 of 24-09-2010 Decided on 08-03-2011
Atma singh, aged about 60 years, son of Sh.Gurbachan Singh son of Sh.Nikka Singh, resident of village Chauke, Tehsil Rampura Phul, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Executive Engineer, Maur Mandi, Distt. Bathinda. S.D.O., Punjab State power Corporation Ltd., Sub Urban Division, Maur Mandi, Distt. Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Sarabjit Singh, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.J.P.S.Brar, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding domestic electric connection bearing A/c No.B53CK500515K with connected load of 1.91 KW. The complainant contended that he has been paying the bills regularly issued by the opposite parties from time to time and no amount on account of electricity consumed by him is pending towards him. The complainant had received a bill dated 01.06.2010 from the opposite parties wherein the consumption of electricity has been shown as 120 units and the consumption charges were of Rs.360/- + E.D. Rs.43/-, meter rent Rs.10/-, service charges Rs.10/- and Rs.1,780/- as arrear of current financial year and Rs.11,780/- under the head of sundry charges. The complainant had requested the opposite parties to correct the bill amount but the opposite parties threatened the complainant either to pay the bill amount or his connection would be disconnected. All the previous bills have been paid by the complainant regularly and the status of the meter is 'O'. The complainant again received a bill dated 30.07.2010 from the opposite parties wherein the consumption of electricity has been shown as 53 units and the consumption charges to the tune of Rs.165/- + E.D. Rs.21/-, meter rent Rs.10/-, service charges Rs.10/- and amount of Rs.15,030/- are shown as arrears of current financial year. The complainant again approached the opposite parties for correcting his bill and the opposite party No.2 on 22.08.2010 had taken both the bills dated 01.06.2010 and 30.07.2010 from the complainant and written on the bill dated 01.06.2010 that an amount of Rs.11,660/- has been charged on account of committing theft of energy. The complainant has alleged that he had never been indulged in theft of energy. The opposite parties have never issued any notice and intimation with regard to the alleged demand. No date, month and year has been disclosed by the opposite party No.2 on bill dated 01.06.2010 when the opposite parties alleged that the complainant was committing theft of energy. No opportunity of being heard has been provided to the complainant. The opposite parties have raised a demand through alleged regular bills. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant was controlling the supply/consumption of electricity be way of unauthorized means and the checking was conducted in the premises of the complainant by the officials of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. in the presence of the complainant/representative and during checking, it was observed that the complainant was indulged in illegal obstructions of electricity by way of connecting the main service line with the supply line by way of by-passing the meter. The complainant/his representative misbehaved the checking party and the checking report was prepared at the site in the presence of the complainant by the checking party but the complainant/his representative has refused to sign the checking report and the copy of checking has affixed at the front door of premises of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant issued a demand notice No.2478 dated 04.09.2008 thereby raising a demand of Rs. 11,660/- u/s 126 of the Electricity Act on the basis of checking dated 22.08.2008 but the complainant did not receive the same and ultimately, the notice was sent through registered post and an application was moved to S.H.O., P.P. Chauke for taking action against the complainant on account of indulging in theft of electricity. The complainant has neither filed objections nor deposited the demanded amount and final order of assessment was passed. The complainant did not pay the demanded amount and it has been charged in the bill dated 01.06.2010 as per rules of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The complainant had failed to deposit the amount of bill dated 01.06.2010, so the arrears of bill dated 01.06.2010 has been charged in the subsequent bill dated 30.07.2010. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The complainant had received a bill dated 01.06.2010 from the opposite parties where the consumption of electricity has been shown as 120 units and the consumption charges were of Rs.360/- + E.D. Rs.43/-, meter rent Rs.10/-, service charges Rs.10/- and Rs.1,780/- as arrear of current financial year and Rs.11,780/- under the head of sundry charges. The complainant requested the opposite parties to correct his bill amount as all the previous bill have been paid by the complainant and the status of the meter is 'O'. The complainant again received a bill dated 30.07.2010 from the opposite parties where the consumption of electricity has been shown as 53 units and the consumption charges to the tune of Rs.165/- + E.D. Rs.21/-, meter rent Rs.10/-, service charges Rs.10/- and amount of Rs.15,030/- are shown as arrears of current financial year. The opposite parties conveyed him that the amount has been charged in the sundry column is of theft of electricity. The complainant has submitted that he had never indulged in theft of electricity; no notice has been issued to the complainant; no date, month and year has been disclosed by the opposite party No.2 on bill dated 01.06.2010; no opportunity of being heard has been provided to the complainant. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant was controlling the supply/consumption of electricity be way of unauthorized means and the checking was conducted in the premises of the complainant on 22.08.2008 by the officials of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. in the presence of the complainant/his representative who refused to sign the checking report and the copy of checking report was affixed at the front door of the premises of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was issued a demand notice bearing memo No.2478 dated 04.09.2008, raising a demand of Rs.11,660/- u/s 126 of the Electricity Act on the basis of checking dated 22.08.2008 but the complainant did not receive the same; the notice was sent through registered post and an application was also moved to S.H.O., P.P. Chauke for taking action against the complainant on account of indulged in theft of electricity. The complainant has neither filed objections nor deposited the demanded amount and final order of assessment was passed. When the complainant has failed to pay the demanded amount, the same was charged in the bill dated 01.06.2010 as per rules of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Again, the complainant has failed to deposit the demanded amount vide bill dated 01.06.2010 as such, the arrears of bill dated 01.06.2010 has been charged in the subsequent bill dated 30.07.2010. 7. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 01.06.2010 Ex.C-5 where the demand of Rs.11,780/- is shown in the column of sundry charges. It has been specifically noted down on bill dated 22.08.2010 that Rs.11,660/- are of theft. The opposite parties have conducted the checking dated 22.08.2008 in the premises of the complainant and it has been found that the complainant was indulging in illegal obstructions of electricity by way of connecting the main service line with supply line by way of by-passing the meter and cable was being used by the complainant. An illegal obstructions of electricity was taken into possession by the checking officials. This checking report has not been signed by the complainant as he has refused to sign the same. This checking report has been signed by four members of the checking team supported by affidavit of two members of the checking team. The opposite parties have specifically mentioned in their reply that the complainant has refused to sign and receive the checking report which was affixed on the front door of his premises. Thereafter, the demand notice bearing memo No.2478 dated 04.09.2008, raising a demand of Rs.11,660/- u/s 126 of the Electricity Act was sent to the complainant through registered post. The copy of dispatch receipt has been placed on file by the opposite parties to prove their version. 8. The complainant has alleged that the demand shown in the bill was never conveyed to him that on what account, this demand has been raised. Hence, the contention of the complainant fails as a perusal of documents shows that the checking was done in the presence of the complainant as he refused to sign the same. It was affixed on the front door of the premises of the complainant and then it was sent through registered post but the complainant has neither deposited the money nor filed the objections. The opposite parties have also given an application to SHO, PP, Chauke for taking action against the complainant on account of his being indulging in the theft of electricity. When the complainant has failed to pay the demanded amount, the same was added in the bill dated 01.06.2010 and when the complainant has failed to pay this amount, this was demanded through bill dated 22.08.2010. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 08-03-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member
|
