DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.304 of 13-07-2010 Decided on 29-10-2010
Gurbachan Singh s/o Sh. Ishar Singh, aged about 60 years, r/o village Mahi Nangal, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its XEN, Distribution, Bathinda (erst-while) Punjab State Electricity Board). A.E.E./S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, (erst-while Punjab State Electricity Board) Sub Division, Raman, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.G.S.Sidhu, 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 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the complainant has filed the present complaint with allegations against the opposite parties that he is holding domestic electricity connection bearing account No.MN-52/139. The opposite parties have issued a Final Order/demand notice vide memo No.985 dated 02.07.2010 issued u/s 135 of Electricity Act, whereby, a demand of Rs.4,608/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking dated 01.07.2010 and directed the complainant to deposit the amount and further to pay Rs.2,760/- for compounding the offence of theft of energy. The complainant alleged that neither the checking has ever been conducted in the premises of the complainant in his presence or in the presence of his any family members nor the complainant ever indulged in theft of electricity. Neither the signatures of the complainant or his any family members were obtained at the time of alleged checking nor any checking report was given to the complainant or his representative even it has not been pasted outside the house of the complainant nor the same was sent through post. No proper opportunity of personal hearing was given to the complainant and even the name of the Checking Officer has not been mentioned on the demand notice. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint with prayer for seeking directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.4,608/-, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment alongwith Rs.5,000/-as cost of litigation expenses. 2. The opposite parties have pleaded in their joint written statement that the complainant is defaulter in paying the amount to the opposite parties. The memo No.985 dated 02.07.2010 was issued as per rules and regulations of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. On the basis of the said checking which was made by the officials of the opposite parties namely Kirpal Singh, A.J.E. and Nirmal Singh, A.J.E. in the presence of the complainant. At the time of checking, it was found that the complainant was using electricity for domestic purposes after laying wires from the main PVC wire's joint to the load side. Main switch was switched off and the meter was stopped. The complainant refused to sign the checking report. On the basis of this checking, memo No.985 dated 02.07.2010 was issued to the complainant which has not been complied with by the complainant. 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 premises of the complainant was checked on 01.07.2010 and it was found by the opposite parties that the complainant was using electricity for domestic purposes after laying the wire from the main PVC wire's joint to the load side. Main switch was switched off and the meter was stopped. The complainant has refused to sign the said checking report. The opposite parties have issued a memo No.985 dated 02.07.2010 to the complainant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, whereby, a demand of Rs.4,608/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking dated 01.07.2010 and directed the complainant to deposit the amount and further to pay Rs.2,760/- for compounding the offence of theft of energy. 6. The complainant alleged that the checking was never conducted in his premises in his presence or in the presence of his any family members and he was never indulged in theft of electricity as no signatures have been obtained on the checking report. 7. A perusal of Ex.R-3 shows that the complainant had refused to sign the checking report. A final order of assessment has been sent to the complainant on 02.07.2010 by registered post Ex.C-5. A perusal of Ex.C-5 shows that the opposite parties have sent this notice on the proforma of Provisional assessment order but they have struck off the word provisional and wrote it as Final Order of Assessment, meaning thereby that they have sent him a Final Order of Assessment without sending him a provisional assessment order. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the complainant has refused to sign the checking report. The opposite parties have not sent a provisional order of assessment to the complainant as it was the duty of the opposite parties to send a provisional order of assessment within 48 hours to the complainant by registered post or to paste it out side the premises of the complainant under rules and regulations of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and the opposite parties must have to give a chance to the complainant to file objection as per their rules and after deciding the objections, they should have sent the Final Order of Assessment. In the present case, no such procedure has been followed by the opposite parties. Moreover, there are no signatures of the complainant or any of his representative on the checking report. The opposite parties have produced in their evidence a wire which has been allegedly taken from the spot but the opposite parties in their reply as well as in affidavits of their officials Ex.R-1, Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-5, nothing is mentioned about the taking of wire in possession from the spot. This shows that the producing of wire is after thought of opposite parties. The complainant has not been given any opportunity of being heard, no checking was done in his presence. Theft of electricity is the case of criminal nature, no FIR has been lodged by the opposite parties against the complainant in the present case. So, they cannot ask for compounding charges. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.500/- as cost and compensation with directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.4,608/- and Rs.2,760/- as compounding charges through memo No.985 dated 02.07.2010. The complainant has already deposited Rs.1500/-with directions of this Forum for not disconnection of his connection. No receipt has been produced on file by the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to refund this amount i.e. Rs.1,500/- if deposited by the complainant. 8. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. 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) 29.10.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
