BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/865 of 30.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          12.9.2011

Jagir Singh son of Roor Singh resident of village Faridpur, Tehsil and District Patiala.

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

                                      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 Rohar Jagir, Punjab State Power Corporation,Rohar Jagir, 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.K.K.Jain, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.Pawan Puri, Advocate                

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection bearing account No.P26-MF48/1669M having a sanctioned load of 3.01KW installed at his house. He has been paying the charges of the electricity regularly as per the bills received by him from time to time.

2.       On 20.9.2010, the officials of the ops had visited the house of the complainant and checked the electricity meter in the absence of the complainant. A checking report was prepared but the same was not got signed by the complainant or any representative of him.

3.       The ops issued memo no.1215 dated 21.9.2010 having raised the demand ofRs.21,010/- on account of alleged theft of the energy, on the basis of the checking report dated 20.9.2010. It is averred by the complainant that he had never indulged in theft of the energy and therefore, he described the demand to be illegal, null and void  and not payable by the complainant. It is also averred that no copy of the checking report was given to the complainant. 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 of the memo no.1215 dated 21.9.2010 and to pay him Rs.20,000/- by way of damages for the harassment suffered by him at the hands of the ops.

4.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked by the concerned officials of the ops on 20.9.2010 and it was found that the complainant was committing theft of the energy by by-passing the meter. The checking was made in the presence of Malkit Singh, a representative of the complainant who had counter signed the checking report and the copy of the checking report was also delivered to the representative.

5.       It is further averred that on the basis of the checking report memo no.1215 dated 21.9.2010 was issued against the complainant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 having raised the demand of Rs.21010/- and having advised the complainant to prefer the objections against the order of assessment if so desired but the complainant failed to prefer any objections before the competent authority. The concerned office of the Sub Division had also requested the concerned incharge Anti Power Theft, Police Station, Patiala for the registration of the criminal case as per the provisions under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003. The allegations made in the complaint are said to be manipulated ones. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.       In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, Ex.C2 the sworn affidavit of Dayal Chand Aneja alongwith the documents,Exs.C3 to C5 and the learned counsel for the complainant closed the evidence.

7.       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 the affidavit, Ex.R2 the sworn affidavit of AAE Rehmal Singh of op no.2 alongwith documents,Exs.R3 to R5 and  closed their evidence.

8.       The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

9.       Ex.R3 is the copy of the checking report dated 20.9.2010 as got proved by the ops with the assistance of sworn affidavit,Ex.R2 of Additional Assistant Engineer, Rehmal Singh of op no.2 who had conducted the checking of the electricity connection of the complainant on 20.9.2010. As per the checking report the neutral and the phase were found to have been reversed with the help of the incoming supply , thereby having made the supply direct having stopped the meter. The supply was running in the house. The report is shown to have been signed by Malkit Singh, a representative of the complainant.

10.     On the basis of the checking report, the order of the provisional assessment,Ex.R4 was sent to the complainant vide memo no.1215 dated 21.9.2010.

11.     It was submitted by Sh.Pawan Puri, the learned counsel for the ops  that there is not statement to have been made by the complainant Jagir Singh in his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, that the checking report,Ex.R3, does not bear the signatures of Malkit Singh and that Malkit Singh is not his representative or that he was not present at the time of the checking conducted by Additional Assistant Engineer, Rehmal Singh on 20.9.2010.

12.     Then, it was submitted by Sh.Puri, that the complainant failed to prefer any objections against the order of provisional assessment despite having been advised vide the provisional order of assessment itself that in case the complainant did not agree with the order of assessment, he could prefer the objections before SE(Operation), a Designated Authority under the Electricity Supply Code and Related  Matters Regulations 2007 but no such objections were ever preferred by the complainant.

13.     Here, it may be stated that only today an application has been filed by the complainant seeking permission to produce by way of additional evidence the copy of the representation dated 23.9.2010 made before the Superintending Engineer,Patiala Circle of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,  and AEE of op no.2 on the ground that the complainant could not produce the said representation as also  the postal receipts in that regard earlier. We are not inclined to accept the application, simply on the ground that no averment regarding the same was made in the complaint. Even the complainant has not produced any postal receipts to show that the representation was sent to the aforesaid authorities of the PSPCL and accordingly the application in that regard is hereby dismissed.

14.     It was simply contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that by virtue of the order of provisional assessment, the complainant has been burdened with the liability to pay the penalty for theft of the energy for a period of 12 months but without having established the fact that the complainant had been committing theft of the energy during the last 12 months.

15.     In this regard , it was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that it is provided under  Regulation 37(2)(a) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 that , “ where  it is prima facie estanlished that theft of electricity has taken place, the consumption of electricity will be computed on the basis of the LDHF formula as detailed in para 4 below.”

Regulation 37(2)(b) further provides that, “the consumption of electricity so computed will be charged for a presumptive period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft at two times the normal tariff rate. The period of 12 months may however, be suitably reduced, if the Authorized Officer, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is satisfied that theft of electricity has actually taken place for a lesser period.”

16.     We have considered the submissions and find that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the ops that the complainant was found committing theft of the energy unauthorisedly by way of reversing the neutral and the phase and having stopped the working of the meter and thus was taking a direct  supply. The failure on the part of the complainant to prefer the objections against the order of provisional assessment,Ex.R4, would also  go to show that he has admitted the allegations of theft of the energy. It has been 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.”  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