Punjab

Sangrur

CC/286/2015

Balram Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S S Saggu

03 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    286

                                                Instituted on:      06.05.2015

                                                Decided on:       03.11.2015

 

Balram Dutt Advocate aged 78 years son of Shri Bhagwan Dass R/o Bhawanigarh, Main Bazaar, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its C.M.D./Chairman/Secretary.

2.     S.D.O./Asstt. Executive Engineer, PSPCL Sub Division, Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Naveen Markan, Advocate.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Gurpreet Sharma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Balram Dutt, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by taking an electric connection bearing account number S41MB530872M, of which the complainant has been paying the bills regularly to the OPs and nothing is due towards the complainant. It is further stated that the electric meter of the complainant was installed outside the premises of the complainant.  The complainant is aggrieved on receiving bill dated 25.4.2015 for Rs.60,880/- in which an amount of Rs.59,105/- has been charged on account of sundry charges.  After receiving the bill, the complainant approached the OPs for withdrawal of the excess amount, but the Ops stated to pay the bill, otherwise to face disconnection of the electricity connection. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.59,105/- on account of sundry charges raised in the bill dated 25.4.2015 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the electricity connection in question is running in the name of the complainant. It has been denied that the bill in question dated 25.4.2015 is inflated one and the demand of Rs.59,105/- is said to be genuine one.  It is stated further that the OPs sent a notice number 1723 dated 2.9.2014 under section 135 of the Electricity Act for theft of electricity, but the complainant did not make the payment of fine as per the notice within 15 days , as such the same was added in the bill dated 25.4.2015. It is denied that no notice was issued to the complainant before raising the demand.  It is further stated in the reply that the OPs had also sent the intimation of theft to Anti Power Theft Police Station for registration of FIR against the complainant.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of receipts of payment, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 photographs, Ex.C-10 affidavit of the complainant dated 6.5.2015, Ex.C-11 affidavit of the complainant dated 25.8.2015, Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-18 copies of bills and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 copy of notice under section 135, Ex.OP-2 copy of checking report dated 29.8.2014, Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4 copies of transfer meters report, Ex.OP-5 copy of application dated 2.9.2014 and Ex.OP-6 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by getting installed the electricity connection bearing account number S41MB530872M.  It is also an admitted fact that the OPs have issued a notice under section 135 dated 2.9.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-1, whereby the Ops have raised a demand of Rs.59105/- on account of theft of electricity by the complainant as the complainant disturbed the meter recording system by tampering the ME seals of the meter, as is evident from Ex.OP-1.   Ex.OP-2 is the copy of checking report wherein it has been again mentioned that both the ME seals of the meter were found tampered and it is a case of theft of electricity. A bare perusal of the notice clearly reveals that the complainant was found committing theft of electricity by tampering the ME seals of the meter.   We have also perused the copy of letter sent by the Ops to the Inspector, Anti Power Theft Police Station, Patiala, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-5 for registration of a case of theft of power against the complainant. The learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint as it is a case of theft of electricity and has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. And others versus Anis Ahmad, Appeal No.5466 of 2012, decided on 1.7.2013, wherein the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred. We have also perused the averments of the complaint, version of the OPs and found that this Forum has no jurisdiction to deicide the present complaint. As such, we find that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum.   The learned counsel for the OPs has also cited Torrent Power Limited versus Subhash N. Shah and others 2015(3) CLT 68 (NC), wherein it has been held that the District Forum has no jurisdiction in a case of theft of electricity, even where such allegations are made by the service provider. It has been further held that the Consumer Forum must necessarily keep its hands off the complaint and should not enter into the arena of making enquiry into the alleged theft and unauthorised use of electricity.  It would be open only to the concerned court to inquire into such allegations and take an appropriate view on them.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the OPs has also cited a ruling of the Hon’ble National Commission pronounced in Puran Singh versus Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited and 2 others 2015(2) CPJ 645 (NC).

 

 

6.     The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited various rules and regulations as well as citations such as Ram Lal Ashok Kumar versus Electricity Department, UT Chandigarh and another 2005(1) JRC 618 (UT State Commission, Chandigarh, Tarsem Singh versus Punjab State Electricity Board 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 584 (P&H). , but none of them is applicable in the present circumstances of the case, as the case in hand is of theft of electricity, wherein this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the same.

       

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent court of law/Forum for the redressal of his grievance, if so desired. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                November 3, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                       

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member