BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/1059 of 9.12.2010 

                                                Decided on:          23.8.2011

Gurcharan Singh ( Ex.Sarpanch, aged about 49 Years, S/o Late Sh.Kartar Singh, R/o Village Chethe, P.O.Galwati, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 PSPCL The Mall, Patiala through C.M.D.

2.                 Assistant Engineer, D.S. P.S.E.B., Sub Division, PSPCL, Dhingi,District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Amar Singh, Advocate

For opposite parties:     None

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection DS bearing account No.P53F180069F installed at the residence of the complainant in village Chethe.The complainant had been making the payment of the bills of the electricity regularly and without any default. The complainant received the bill no.2 dated 27.11.2010 also showing Rs.31,122/- as sundry charges payable on or before 13.12.2010.The complainant approached op no.2 to get the detail of the amount and to know about the reason of the sundry charges but who failed to satisfy the complainant and rather directed the complainant to deposit the amount first and thereafter, the matter will be sorted out. The complainant approached Sr.Officers of the ops but they also failed to take any decision in the matter. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for quashing the demand of Rs.31,122/- and to direct the ops to accept the bill for the current charges and also to award the compensation in a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops.

2.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea put forth by the ops that the connection of the complainant was checked in his presence and he had signed the checking report. He was found having stopped the meter and was making a use of the electricity by tapping the wire away from the meter.The complainant was given the copy of the checking report. He filed the appeal before the Disputes Settlement Committee and the matter was decided against him. Consequently, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant was indulging in theft of the energy. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3.       In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C11 and Ex.C12, the sworn affidavit of Jagga Singh and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

4.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Ramvir Sharma, SDO  Dhingi Sub Division of the PSPCL alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R6 and closed their evidence.

5.       The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the complainant none having appeared on behalf of the ops. And gone through the evidence on record.

 6.      Ex.R2, is the copy of the checking report dated 8.9.2010 got proved by the ops with the assistance of sworn affidavit,Ex.R1 of Ramvir Sharma, SDO Dhingi Sub Division of the PSPCL whereby the complainant was found committing theft of the energy having tapped the LT line passing by the side of the house of the complainant. The main switch was off and the meter was lying stopped. It is very much averred in the written statement that the checking was done in the presence of the complainant and he had signed the checking report in token of the correctness there of.

7.       On the basis of the checking report, the ops had sent the provisional order of assessment. The complainant had preferred the objections against the said provisional order of assessment, the same being,Ex.C3.After hearing the objections of the complainant, the final order of assessment,Ex.R5 was passed and the same was conveyed to the complainant vide memo no.15001 dated 14.10.2010 having up held the provisional order of assessment No.911 dated 9.9.2010 .

8.       The matter between the complainant and the ops having been settled by the competent authority i.e. SE Circle PSPCL Patiala being the designated authority under Electricity Supply Code and Related Matter Regulation 2007, who determined the objections raised by the complainant against the order of provisional assessment resulting into the passing of the final order of assessment dated 14.10.2010, we are of the considered view that no complaint is maintainable after the passing of the final order of assessment by the designated authority. It was observed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of the citation Uttari Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. Versus Karam Chand 2010(2)CLT 3 , “if the respondent was aggrieved with the provisional assessment made by the Assessing Officer, it was open to him to file objection and eventually to move the Appellate Authority and Statutory Body, constituted under the Act. The notice, imposing penalty was also acknowledged by respondent. We do not feel impressed about any action resorted to by the respondent challenging either the alleged inspection or imposition of penalty, as required under the Act.”

9.       Consequently, we are of the considered view that the complainant having availed of the remedy as provided under the Electricity Act 2003, the complaint before this Forum is not maintainable without any deficiency on the part of the ops having been alleged and established and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:23.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President