Punjab

Patiala

CC/10/815

Gurumukh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. K K Jain

12 Sep 2011

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, PATIALADISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,#9A, OPPOSITE NIHAL BAGH PATIALA
CONSUMER CASE NO. 10 of 815
1. Gurumukh Singh ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. PSPCL ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Sh. K K Jain, Advocate for
For the Respondent :

Dated : 12 Sep 2011
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

 

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/815 of 17.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          12.9.2011

 

1.                 Gurmukh Singh son of Sarwan Singh, resident of Village Kanahaheri, Post Office Bhankar, Tehsil Patiala.

2.                 Gulzar Singh son of Raunki son of Chhotta resident of village Udey Pur Alias Diwanwala Tehsil & District Patiala.

 

                                                                             -----------Complainants

                                      Versus

 

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman cum Managing Director.

2.                 Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Sub Division, Devigarh, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., ,Sub Division, Devigarh, 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 complainants:    Sh.K.K.Jain, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.Pawan Puri , Advocate

                                     

                                         ORDER

 

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant Gumukh Singh had applied for an electricity connection and he is making a use of the electricity connection bearing account No.P24GR162082A.

2.       The complainant Gurmukh Singh and his sons Gurjit Singh and Gurwinder Singh are in possession of the tubewell connection of 15BHP installed in the land as fully detailed in para no.3 of the complaint situate in the area of village Udeypur Diwanwala Tehsil and District Patiala.

3.       Complainant Gurmukh Singh received memo no.751 dated 31.8.2010 from the ops in respect of demand of Rs.32,227/- on the basis of the checking report dated 19.8.2010, which is stated to be illegal and the amount of the same is not payable by complainant Gurmukh Singh as he had never committed theft of the energy as alleged in the report and in the demand notice.

4.       It is averred that the meter of the complainant was never checked in the presence of the complainant by any official of the ops. Therefore, the recovery on the basis of the impugned notice is said to be illegal, null and void and against the principle of natural justice. 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 a direction to the ops not to recover the amount on the basis of the demand notice no.751 dated 31.8.2010; to pay him Rs.20,000/- by way of damages on account of the harassment suffered by the complainant Gurmukh Singh at the hands of the ops and to grant any other relief for which he is entitled.

5.       On notice, ops appeared and filed their written version having raised certain legal objections, interalia, that complainant Gurmukh Singh is not a consumer of the ops in respect of the AP connection at the site in respect of which he was caught using the electricity unauthorizedly; that complainant Guljar Singh had no cause of action to file the complaint as no demand was raised from him and that the Forum lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint, the demand having been raised under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 and the proceedings under Section 135 of the Act are criminal in nature and the State Government has empowered the Additional Session Judges in the State of Punjab to try such cases. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is averred that the filing of any application by the complainant Gurmukh Singh for the release of a connection does not give him a right to use the supply without the release of the connection because no agriculture power connection has been issued in the name of complainant Gurmukh Singh. The electricity connection bearing account No.P24 GR 16082A is a domestic connection and the complainants have made a mention of the same just to confuse the matter and to misrepresent the facts. There is no dispute about the said connection.

6.       It is further averred that a team of the officials of the ops had conducted the checking of the connection of Gulzar Singh bearing account No.AP28/1007 on 19.8.2010 and it was detected that complainant Gulzar Singh had shifted his motor from the place of the kotha in which it was originally installed to some other kotha, in respect of which Gulzar Singh had informed by depositing the requisite fee. It was also found that there was one more kotha built alongwith kotha of complainant Gulzar Singh and one electric motor/bore  was found installed in the same and the cable of the same was connected with the LT line of the Power Corporation and the said motor had no account number meaning thereby that the said motor was being used unauthorizedly by complainant Gurmukh Singh. The cable with the help of which complainant Gurmukh Singh had taken the supply directly from the LT line was removed and taken into possession. Gurjit Singh son of Gurmukh Singh was present at the site at the time of the checking who had signed the checking report in token of the correctness there of.

7.       It is further averred that the assessing officer of the ops on receipt of the checking report had issued a notice under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 having raised the demand of Rs.32,227/- and of Rs.25000/-as compounding fee in case the consumer intended to compound the offence. The consumer was also advised to file the objections before the competent authority i.e.SE,Patiala, if he so desired. The complainant, however, failed to file any objections. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8.       In support of their complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.C1 the sworn affidavit of the complainant Gurmukh Singh, Ex.C2, the sworn affidavit of the complainant Gulzar Singh, alongwith the documents,Exs.C3 to C10 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

9.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the reply filed to the complaint in the form of an affidavit, Ex.R2 the sworn affidavit of Prem Kumar Garg, AAE, of op no.2, Ex.R3 the sworn affidavit of JE Harlal Singh also of op no.2 alongwith documents,Exs.R4 to R6 and  closed their evidence.

10.     The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

 11.    Ex.R4, is the copy of checking report dated 19.8.2010 as got proved by the ops with the assistance of the sworn affidavits Ex.R2 of  AAE, Prem Kumar Garg and JE Harlal Singh of op no.2, who had conducted the checking of the electricity connection bearing account No. AP 28/1007 on 19.8.2010. As per the checking report the electric motor had been shifted from the original room to the another room after having deposited the shifting charges, as disclosed by the consumer. Along the old room of the complainant Gulzar Singh one other room was also built in which a bore was made and the same was connected with the LT line with the help of the cable but since the electricity was off the bore was not working. The said motor had no account number. About 15 meter black coloured PVC cable was got into possession. As per the consumer capacity of the motor was 12.5 BHP. The report is shown to have been signed by Gurjit Singh son of Gurmukh Singh. The ops have also produced in evidence,Ex.R5 the copy of the checking report dated 26.7.2010 in respect of the electricity account no.AP 28/1007 whereby the electricity motor was found to have been shifted from the original bore to another bore at a distance of 23-28 meters.

12.     It is the positive case of the complainants that they are the consumers under the Act, complainant Gurmukh Singh having applied for a connection and that complainant Gurmukh Singh was using the electricity account No.24GR162082A.The aforesaid electricity connection is a domestic connection as per the plea taken up by the ops and therefore, under the garb of the aforesaid electricity connection, the complainants wanted to say that they are making a use of the electricity connection of the account No.AP28/1007.It is the averment made by the complainant Gurmukh Singh in his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1 that he has purchased the share of the electricity connection from the complainant Gulzar Singh. In this regard he has placed on file,Ex.C5, the photo copy of the sale deed dated 29.4.2003, to have been executed by  complainant Gulzar Singh in favour of Gurjit Singh and Gurwinder Singh sons of Gurmukh Singh regarding the sale of land measuring 5 canals 9 marlas being 109/1559 share of the land measuring 77 canals 19 marlas alongwith the right to make a use of the tubewell motor/electricity connection , turn of the canal water etc. Similarly, the complainants have produced in evidence,Ex.C6, the photo coy of the sale deed dated 4.5.2004 to have been executed by complainant Gulzar Singh in favour of Gurjit Singh and Gurwinder Singh sons of Gurmukh Singh regarding the sale of the land measuring 12 canals being 240/1559 share of the land measuring 77.19 marlas alongwith the right to make a use of tubewell bore/ electricity connection etc..Similarly the complainants have produced in evidence,Ex.C7 the photo copy of the sale deed dated 8.11.2006 to have been executed by Gulzar Singh s/o Raunki  in favour of Gurmukh Singh s/o Sarwan Singh regarding the sale of land measuring 1 kanal t0 marlas  being 30/1559 share of the land measuring  77K.19M  alongwith the right to make a use of the tubewell/electricity connection, turn of the canal water etc.

13.     It was for the complainants to have led the evidence that complainant Gurmukh Singh and his sons Gurjit Singh and Gurwinder Singh was irrigating the land purchased by them with the help of the electricity connection bearing account No.AP28/1007 . From the evidence led by the ops it has been established that they( complainants) have installed  another bore in a room adjoining the original kotha where the electricity motor was installed and where the tubewell bore was connected with LT line with the help of a 15 meter cable, meaning thereby that the complainant Gurmukh Singh and his sons were making a use of the electricity unauthorizedly.

14.     Simply because complainant Gurmukh Singh had applied for the release of an AP connection does not mean that he could make a use of the electricity unauthorizedly. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of the ops in respect of the complainant Gurmukh Singh and his sons having connected the tubewell bore installed in the room adjoining the original room where the electricity connection of account No.AP28/1007 was released in favour of the complainant Gulzar Singh with the LT line especially when complainant Gurmukh Singh failed to raise any objection against the order of provisional assessment,Ex.R6 dated 31.8.2010 despite having been advised that in case he was not agreeable to the order of provisional assessment he could prefer the objection before SE Patiala, the Designated Authority under the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007.

15.     Here, it may be noted that an application was filed by the complainant on 21.6.2011 seeking permission to produce by way of additional evidence, the copy of the representation dated 3.9.2010 made before (i) the Chief Engineer Commercial, PSPCL, The Mall, Patiala (ii) SE( Operation) PSPCL 66 KV Grid Sub Division near Shiv Mandir, Patiala and (iii) AEE PSPCL, Operation Sub Division,Devigarh on the ground that the same could not be tendered in evidence earlier by way of inadvertence.

16.     It was fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the complainants that no reference of the aforesaid representation has been made in the complaint. The copy of the representation is affixed with the postal receipt but the date of the same has intentionally been torn. Therefore, nobody can say that it was sent to the aforesaid officers of the ops on 3.9.2010. It is quite possible that the same was sent to the officers of the ops later on and the application was moved accordingly to fill up the lacuna in the case. The production of the copy of the representation is one thing but making a mention of the same is the other. Had a mention of the said representation been made in the complaint, there would  have been no problem for us to allow the application but now we are not inclined to accept the application and the same is hereby dismissed.

17.     As an upshot or our aforesaid discussion, we find that complainant Gurmukh Singh and his sons were found having connected their tubewell motor with the LT line unauthorizedly and as per the allegations made by the complainants that they are making a use of the same having purchased the electricity connection bearing account No.AP28/1007, it would only mean that they were making use of the aforesaid connection unauthorizedly under the garb of having purchased the land alongwith right to make a use of the electricity connection and therefore, we do not find any reason to find any fault  committed by the officials of the ops in  having served the complainant Gurmukh Singh with a demand on the basis of the order of provisional assessment,Ex.R6 and complainant Gurmukh Singh is bound to deposit the amount of the same. In other words 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

   

 

 

 

                                     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Smt. Neelam Gupta, MemberHONABLE MR. D.R.Arora, PRESIDENT Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member