DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 343 of 19-07-2011 Decided on : 25-11-2011
Jagdev Singh aged about 50 years S/o Sher Singh R/o Village Chauke, Tehsil Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Maur.
..... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Mamber Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.P.S. Brar, counsel for the opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is holder of domestic electric connection No. CK50/693 and he has been paying the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties from time to time and nothing is due against him. He received a memo No. 1251 dated 29-06-2011 raising a demand of Rs. 45,943/- from him under Section 135 of Electricity Act, on the basis of checking dated 25-06-2011. It has been mentioned in the said memo that during the checking the complainant was found using electricity by bye-passing the meter and using excess electricity authorizedly. The complainant alleged that the impugned memo is illegal and against the rules of the Power Com on the ground that checking dated 25-06-2011 was neither made in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained on the checking report; the load mentioned in the memo No. 1251 is totally illegal and was never used by the complainant; meter of the complainant is installed outside on the electric pole in the street; copy of checking report was not supplied to the complainant; no opportunity was provided to the complainant to file objections; no final order of assessment can be made nor any demand raised on the basis of such invalid, incompetent and unauthorized inspection and no evidence of theft was collected at the spot. The complainant made many requests and personally met the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned memo, but to no effect. Hence, he has filed the present complaint. The opposite parties filed their joint reply and pleaded that on 25-06-2011, a checking was conducted by the checking team headed by Er. Ashok Kumar Singla, SDO, assisted by Er. Dev Raj, J.E. and other staff members, in the premises of the complainant, in the presence of representative of the complainant and during the checking, they found that complainant had made cut and joint in the incoming 2 core PVC and has installed changeover on the board and connected the same with main PVC with 2 core PVC. In this way, he has been getting supply by bye-passing the meter and further the meter was in stopped condition whereas the supply was 'on'. Accordingly, the checking staff held it to be a case of theft of electricity and they took the cable in their possession. The checking staff further found that the sanctioned load of the complainant's connection was 0.260 KW whereas connected load was found to be 4.646 KW. The checking report was prepared at the site but the lady, representative of the complainant, with malafide intention had refused to put her signature on the checking report. Ultimately, a copy of the checking report was pasted outside the premises of the complainant i.e. at the main entrance gate. The connection of the complainant was disconnected and on the basis of checking report, provisional demand notice under Section 135 of Electricity Act bearing memo No. 1251 dated 29-06-2011 raising a demand of Rs. 45,943/- on account of theft of electricity and Rs. 13,940/- for compounding the offence was issued to the complainant whereby the complainant was asked to deposit the demanded amount or file objections before designated authority within 15 days, but he did not receive the demand notice. Ultimately, demand notice alongwith calculation sheet and copy of checking report was sent to him through registered post, which was received by him but he neither filed objections nor deposited the demanded amount. The opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant was caught red-handed committing theft of electricity and connecting excess load than the sanctioned one and as such, he is bound by the checking report. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The opposite parties have issued a provisional demand notice U/S 135 of Electricity Act vide memo Ex. C-2 No. 1251 dated 29-06-2011 raising a demand of Rs. 45,943/- on account of theft of electricity and Rs. 13,940/- for compounding the office on the basis of checking report Ex. R-3. A perusal of checking report reveals that on checking the electric connection of the complainant by the officials of the opposite parties, his meter was found stopped whereas the electricity supply was on. He was consuming electricity directly from PVC joint and the wire which was being used for consuming electricity unauthorisedly was recovered at the spot. The connected load of the complainant was found 4.646 KW as against the sanctioned load of 0.26 KW. The representative of the complainant who was present at the spot refused to sign the checking report and the officials of the opposite parties pasted its copy on the main gate of the complainant, as per their rules and regulations. On the basis of checking report, the opposite parties issued impugned memo but the complainant refused the receive the same and the same was sent by registered post by the opposite parties. The checking was conducted by Er. Ashok Kumar Singla, S.D.O. /A.E. and Er. Dev Raj, J.E.. Both the officers have deposed in the affidavits Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2 respectively that they found the complainant had made 'cut' and 'joint' in the incoming 2 core PVC and has installed changeover on the board and connected the same with main PVC with 2 core PVC. In this way, he has been getting supply by bye-passing the meter and further the meter was in stopped condition whereas the supply was on. The connected load of the complainant was found 4.646 KW as against sanctioned load of 0.260 KW. They took the cable with which theft was being committed in their possession. On the other hand, the complainant has not placed on file any document to prove that load in excess was not being consumed by him. It is not the allegation of the complainant that the official who conducted the checking were in any way inimical towards him. Hence, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the record produced on file by the parties, this Forum is of the view that the case in hand is regarding theft of electricity and Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this complaint. The support can be sought by law laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Ishwar Singh Vs Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 18 (NC), wherein it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(d)(ii), 21(b) – Electricity – Theft ...... – Contention, complainant committed theft of energy from PVC joint prior to meter for non-domestic purpose – Accepted ....... – in theft of electricity Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction – Complainant prima facie is not a consumer – complaint not maintainable.” In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is dismissed being not maintainable, with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced 25-11-2011
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
|
