DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.389 of 30-08-2010 Decided on 22-12-2010
Dalwara Singh alias Darbara Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh alias Dharminder Singh, r/o village Kothe Bhaiana, Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its M.D./Chairman. A.E.E./S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil Phul, 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.Lachhman Kumar, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.R.D. Goyal, 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 got electric connection for tubewell of 5 BHP motor from the opposite parties bearing A/c No.BH-1829 (New Computerized No. is B92 AP021829X). He has been using the electricity connection to earn his livelihood from agriculture and has been paying the bills regularly. The complainant was in need of higher load than of 5 BHP. He has deposited Rs.1,500/- vide receipt No.10227 dated 22.01.2010 on the instructions of the opposite parties for the higher load i.e. 12.5 BHP in place of 5 BHP earlier sanctioned load. The complainant had also purchased 12.5 BHP motor vide bill No.28 dated 21.06.2010 from M/s Ramdass Submersible Pump, Bhagta Bhai Ka and installed 12.5 BHP motor in place of 5 BHP. For the earlier installed motor, the bore was 60 ft. deep, whereas, for the new installed motor, the bore is at 410 ft. deep. The opposite parties issued provisional order of assessment u/s 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 bearing memo No.550 dated 05.07.2010, whereby, a demand of Rs.80,985/- has been raised by the opposite parties on the basis of the alleged checking dated 30.06.2010. The complainant was found indulging in theft of electricity by connecting 7.5 BHP motor unauthorizedly. The complainant has challenged the said memo on the grounds that no checking has been conducted by the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant or any of his authorized representative or any independent witness. The opposite parties have not obtained the signatures of the complainant or any of his authorized representative on the checking report. The complainant is not having 7.5 BHP motor in his fields as alleged in the checking report. Earlier the complainant was having 5 BHP motor and presently he is having 12.5 BHP motor and 5 BHP motor is now lying idle. The complainant has pleaded that if for arguments sake, there has been found any 7.5 BHP motor belonging to the complainant, he has got enhanced his load from 5 BHP motor to 12.5 BHP motor. In this case, he has not been at fault in using the 7.5 BHP motor. He further alleged that no opportunity of being heard has been provided by the opposite parties to him and the name of the father has wrongly mentioned. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant has applied for enhancement of load and deposited the requisite fee but the higher load has not been sanctioned. The connection of the complainant was checked on 30.06.2010 by Senior Ex.En. Enforcement-1 Power Com, alongwith A.A.E., Enforcement in the presence of the complainant and at the time of checking, it was found that the complainant was using the electricity for tubewell purposes without sanction of the opposite parties and wire of 4-5 meter of white colour was removed and taken into possession by the officials of the opposite parties which has been shown at point-A in the site plan. Thus, he was committing theft of electricity. The complainant installed transformer of 6.3 KVA after fixing duplicate plate without seals of the transformer. On the basis of this checking report, a memo No.550 dated 05.07.2010 was issued rightly as per rules and regulations of the Board because he was found using electricity of 7.5 BHP meter unauthorizedly. The name of the complainant and his father has been mentioned in the checking report at the instance of the complainant which was told by the complainant to the officials of the opposite parties. 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 is holding an electric connection of 5 BHP motor for running the tubewell. In view of getting enhancement of his load, he deposited Rs.1,500/- vide receipt No.10227 dated 22.01.2010 with the opposite parties for higher load of 12.5 BHP in place of 5 BHP against earlier sanctioned load. The complainant purchased 12.5 BHP motor vide bill No.28 dated 21.06.2010 from M/s Ramdass Submersible Pump and installed 12.5 BHP motor and 5 BHP motor was lying idle. The bore for previous motor was 60 ft. deep, whereas, for new installed motor, the bore is at 410 ft. depth. The opposite parties have issued provisional demand notice u/s 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 bearing memo No.550 dated 05.07.2010 raising a demand of Rs.80,985/- on the basis of alleged checking dated 30.06.2010 on the pretext that the complainant was found indulging in theft of electricity by connecting 7.5 BHP motor unauthorizedly. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that no checking has been conducted by the officials of the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative or in the presence of any independent witness. The signatures of the complainant/representative or any authorized person have not been taken on the alleged checking report. The complainant is not in possession of any 7.5 BHP motor as earlier he was holding 5 BHP motor and presently, he is holding 12.5 BHP motor and 5 BHP motor is lying idle. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that even if, 7.5 BHP motor belongs to him, the complainant was earlier holding 5 BHP motor, the total load of the two motors became 12.5 BHP. The complainant had already got extended his load from 5 BHP to 12.5 BHP. In this way, he was no at fault as per the version of the opposite parties but actually 7.5 BHP motor did not belong to the complainant. The complainant has also alleged that the opposite parties have wrongly mentioned as Darbara Singh S/o Dharminder Singh in place of Dalwara Singh S/o Mohinder Singh and had not intentionally mentioned the account number of the connection. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant applied for enhancement of load and deposited the requisite fee but the higher load was not sanctioned. The connection of the complainant was checked on 30.06.2010 by Senior Ex.En. Enforcement-I Power Com alongwith A.A.E. Enforcement, Bathinda in the presence of the complainant and at the time of checking, it was found that the complainant was using the electricity for tubewell purposes without seeking sanction of the opposite parties and the wire of 4-5 meter of white colour was removed and taken into possession by the officials of the opposite parties which has been shown at point-A in the site plan. The complainant installed transformer of 6.3 KVA after fixing duplicate plate without seals. On the basis of this checking, a memo No.550 dated 05.07.2010 was issued to the complainant as per rules and regulations of the Board as he was found using the electricity by 7.5 BHP motor unauthorizedly. 7. Admittedly, the complainant had deposited Rs.1,500/- on 22.01.2010 for enhancement of load from 5 BHP to 12.5 BHP Ex.C-2. The complainant has also placed on file Ex.C-3 i.e. Retail Invoice dated 21.06.2010 for the purchase of the motor of 12.5 HP to the tune of Rs.30,800/-. He has also purchased other accessories on 16.06.2010 Ex.C-4 for a sum of Rs.49,290/- for installation of 12.5 BHP motor. The opposite parties have issued to the complainant letter No.550 dated 05.07.2010, whereby, a demand of Rs.80,985/- has been raised for unauthorized use of 7.5 BHP motor. Before this, the opposite parties have conducted the checking on 30.06.2010 in the premises of the complainant. The relevant contents of the checking report Ex.C-6 in english are reproduced as under:- “As per aforesaid graph, electric motors of tubewell have been found running with the system of Power Com. An illegal motor has been found running at a point-A which is a case of theft of electricity. The consumer installed a 6.3 KVA plate after fixing the illegal plate on the transformer. The transformer is without any seals. The action be taken after comparing with the record of the office.” This checking report had not been singed by the complainant. The remark given on the checking report is that the complainant refused to sign the checking report, the name of the complainant has not been mentioned to show who has refused to sign the checking report. The complainant deposited Rs.1,500/- for enhancement of load on 22.01.2010 and as per the version of the opposite parties, his load has not been enhanced till 30.06.2010. The complainant has placed the record on file to show that he has purchased the motor on 21.06.2010 and other accessories on 16.06.2010 which shows that the motor was installed few day back only i.e. 9 days earlier. The opposite parties in their affidavit as well as in their reply have not mentioned the reasons, why the load of the complainant has not been enhanced. The checking was done approximately after five months of depositing the amount for enhancement of load shows that the opposite parties has not sanctioned the enhance load to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. No such letter has been issued by the opposite parties to the complainant that his load has not been enhanced to 12.5 BHP. Moreover, the checking which is conducted after five months, is not done in the presence of the complainant. The opposite parties have not taken any wire into their possession as they have deposed in their affidavits Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 that a white colour wire of 4-5 meter was removed and taken into possession by the officials of the opposite parties which has been shown at point-A in the site plan, shown in the checking report. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant installed transformer of 6.3 KVA after fixing the duplicate plate without seals of the transformer. No white colour wire or 6.3 KVA transformer was produced by the opposite parties in their evidence before this Forum. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh, in the case titled Charan Singh Vs. P.S.E.B. (Chairman) and Another 2006(1)(J.R.C.)206, wherein, it has been held that:- “Electricity theft – Electricity Board cannot raise the demand on the bare report of Meter Inspector which has not even been signed by the complainant – PVC wire which is stated to have been used for by-passing the electricity meter was also not taken into possession by the raiding party – Demand notice quashed.” 8. With utmost regard and humility to the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they have not enhanced the load of the complainant from 5 BHP to 12.5 BHP and they have prepared the case of theft without giving any cogent & convincing evidence to prove the criminal act of theft. Hence, the case of theft against the complainant is disproved. Therefore, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to quash the memo No.550 dated 05.07.2010 of Rs.80,985/-. The complainant had already deposited Rs.27,000/- vide order dated 31.08.2010 Ex.C-10 with the opposite parties. The opposite parties are also directed to refund Rs.27,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance of this order, interest will yield on this amount @ 12% p.a. till its realization. 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 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 22.12.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
|
