DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 336 of 27-07-2010

Decided on : 14-01-2011

Balkaran Singh aged about 32 years S/o Sh. Jagdev Singh R/o Nathana District Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman.

2. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Distribution Sub Division, Bhagta Bhai Ka.

   .... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. R.D. Goyal, counsel for the opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant is holding two tubewell connections No. AP 854 and AP 855 of 10 BHP each. The complainant got a memo/final order No. 515 dated 20-06-2010 under Section 126 of Electricity Act for the payment of Rs. 1,07,980/- on the basis of checking report dated 28-06-2010. It has been written on the checking report that at the time of checking, the motor of 10 BHP was found running from the system of the Board and theft was going on. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that the alleged checking was neither done in his presence nor his signatures were obtained; checking report dated 28-06-2010 was never sent to him; he has neither committed any theft nor has used electricity unauthorisedly; he has not been given any opportunity to file objection and was never called by any authority to give explanation regarding the false case of theft. He has two tubewell connections for cultivation of his land, so there was no question of committing theft.

2. The opposite parties have pleaded in their written statement that memo No. 515 dated 30-06-2010 was rightly issued to the complainant on the basis of checking dated 28-06-2010. The complainant was using the electricity of 10 BHP motor for agricultural purposes without any sanction. This motor was being run by the complainant after laying wire of 150 meter, The cable/wire and starter were removed and it was delivered to Paramjit Singh A.E. The checking was made in the presence of the complainant who did not raise any objection at that time. The complainant after receiving the copy of the checking report, refused to sign it. The checking was made without any ill-will against the complainant and it was a routine checking. This checking was made by Senior Xen Enforcement-1 alongwith A.A.E. Enforcement and A.E Paramjit Singh. On the basis of this checking, a demand of Rs. 1,07,980/- has been raised vide provisional order of assessment No. 515 dated 30-06-2010. The complainant had not filed any objection against the provisional order of assessment and final order No. 741 dated 28-07-2010 was issued. The opposite parties have pleaded that sub-para Nos. A to P of the complaint are wrong, hence denied.

3. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings.

4. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The opposite parties have issued a memo No. 515 dated 30-06-2010 raising a demand of Rs. 87,980/- and Rs. 20,000/- as compounding charges from the complainant on the basis of checking report dated 28-06-2010. A perusal of checking report Ex. R-3 reveals that as per site map drawn on this checking report, two motors of 10 BHP each have been found running by Balkaran Singh, the complainant. A note has been given on this checking report that all the tubewell motors have been running with the system of the Board. One more motor has been found running after laying wire of black colour. The complainant has placed on file Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4 to prove that he has got sanctioned two tubewell connections of 10 BHP each in his name. The opposite parties have also admitted this fact in para No. 1 of their written reply that complainant has two tubewell connection of 10 BHP each vide Nos. AP 854 and AP 855. As mentioned above, the site map drawn on checking report Ex. R-3 shows that two motors of 10 BHP were found running by the complainant. Hence, there was no illegal motor being run by the complainant in his fields and the opposite parties have failed to prove this fact.

   The complainant sought information under RTI vide Ex. C-16 which was duly replied by the opposite parties vide Ex. C-14 wherein they have clearly mentioned at Sr. No. 4 that “In addition to this, no other line is going onward from this land”.

6. Hence keeping in view the evidence produced on file by the parties, it stands proved that complainant is having two tubewell connections of 10 BHP each in his name and the opposite parties, on checking, found two motors of 10 BHP running in his field. Therefore, the complainant was running duly sanctioned motors. No case of theft of electricity has been proved against the complainant. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising demand of Rs. 87,960/- and Rs. 20,000/- as compounding charges vide impugned memo from the complainant without any basis.

7. The complainant has deposited with the opposite parties Rs. 35,000/- vide Ex. C-10 out of the demanded amount, as per order dated 29-07-2010 for not disconnecting his electric connection. The complainant in para No. 9 of his affidavit Ex. C-12 has stated that the opposite parties have come to his house with police to arrest him and threatened either to make the balance payment of Rs. 52,980/- and compounding fees Rs. 20,000/- or to face the consequences of arrest in public and the complainant finding no alternative and to save himself from arrest paid the balance amount of Rs. 52,980/-. He has placed on file receipt of Rs. 52,980/- as Ex. C-10. No cogent and convincing evidence is placed on file by the complainant to prove his version that he has deposited the amount of Rs. 52,980/- under threat.

8. In view of above discussion, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost and the memo No. 515 dated 30-06-2010 of Rs. 1,07,980/- is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 52980/- with interest @9% P.A. with effect from the date of their respective deposits, till realisation.

The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned.

Pronounced

14-01-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul) Member