BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/842 of 24.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          12.9.2011

Gurnam Singh son of S.Kapoor Singh, resident of Village Chappar, Tehsil and District Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Secretary, District Patiala.

2.                 SDO, Sub Division, Sanour, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., 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:     None

For opposite parties:     Sh.P.S.Walia, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection bearing account No.P25BF380527P. He has been paying the charges of the electricity regularly.

2.       The complainant received memo no.1540 dated 20.9.2010 in pursuance of report no.53/1131 dated 19.9.2010 whereby a sum of Rs.23190/- was demanded from the complainant. The complainant has described the said demand to be illegal, null and void and that the allegations regarding theft of the energy are false and concocted one. 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.23190/- being illegal; to pay him Rs.3300/- as the costs of the complaint and Rs.2500/- as counsel’s fee and to restrain the ops from disconnecting the electricity connection on the basis of the illegal demand.

4.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea put forth by the ops that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked on 19.9.2010 by Balkar Singh AE of Sub Division Rohar Jagir and the complainant was found committing theft of the energy by putting a wire on the main supply line having connected the same with the main switch having by passed the meter. The meter was stopped although the supply was running in the house. The wire used by the complainant for committing the theft was got into possession. The complainant signed the checking report in token of the correctness of the checking report. The copy of the checking report was also delivered to him.

5.       On the basis of the checking report memo was issued to the complainant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 as also the rules made there under. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit, Ex.C1, alongwith the documents, Exs.C2 to C3 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

7.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of AEE Parvesh Kumar of Sanour Sub Division, Ex.R2 the sworn affidavit of Balkir Singh,AE operation of the PSPCL at Devigarh, alongwith documents,Exs.R3 to R5 and  closed their evidence.

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

9.       Ex.R3, is the copy of the checking report dated 19.9.2010 as got proved by Balkar Singh,AE Operation PSPCL Devigarh with the help of his sworn affidavit,Ex.R2, the deponent having conducted the checking in respect of the connection of the electricity of the complainant on 20.9.2010.As per the checking report, the complainant was found committing theft of the energy byway of putting a wire on the main supply line and having connected the same with the main switch having by passed the meter. The supply was running in the house while the meter was lying stopped. The checking report is shown to have been signed by the consumer in token of the correctness there of.

10.     On the basis of the checking report, op no.2 had sent the order of provisional assessment,Ex.R4, vide memo no.1540 dated 20.9.2010 having raised the demand of Rs.23190/- as the penalty for committing theft of the energy. The complainant was also advised that in case he did not agree with the order of provisional assessment he could prefer the objections within 15 days on receipt of the order of provisional assessment before SE distribution of the PSPCL,Patiala, a Designated Authority under the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007.

11.     It was submitted by Sh.P.S.Walia, the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant failed to prefer any objections against the order of provisional assessment despite having been advised in this regard vide the order of the provisional assessment,Ex.R4, itself, going to show that the complainant has admitted the factum of the theft of the energy being committed by him unauthorizedly. He also placed reliance upon the citation Uttari Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. Versus Karam Chand 2010(2)CLT 3  of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for the observations that, “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.”

12.     We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of the ops and find that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the ops that the complainant was found committing theft of theenergy unauthorizedly having connected the main switch with the service line having stopped the meter with the help of 3-4 meter cable as per the deposition made by AE Balkar Singh of PSPCL,Devigarh.The failure on the part of the complainant to prefer the objections against the order of provisional assessment,Ex.R4 would go to show that the complainant admitted his guilt in that regard. In the light of the citation Uttari Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. Versus Karam Chand (supra),we do not find any flaw in the action taken by the ops against the complainant having raised the demand of Rs.23190/- vide the provisional order of assessment, Ex.R4 and consequently we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:12.9.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President