DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.347 of 30-07-2010 Decided on 23-12-2010
Jagtar Singh son of Jagroop Singh son of Bega Singh, resident of Multania Road, Bathinda, now residing at House No.479, Phase-I, Model Town, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, (formerly Punjab State Electricity Board), The Mall, Patiala, through its MD. SDO/AAE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Urban Sub Division, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Rajinder Bhukal, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.J.P.S.Brar, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the opposite parties have issued a memo No.788 dated 21.08.2009 to the complainant whereby a demand of Rs.64,258/- has been raised from him on the basis of checking dated 15.08.2009 by the officials of the opposite parties at about 13:40 hrs and found that the complainant was committing theft of electricity from the tubewell connection of one Hakam Singh through 80 meter long cable by drawing same to his own tubewell. The complainant alleged that he has no concern with the land which was allegedly being irrigated by him by stealing electricity by using 80 metre long cable. The agricultural land of the complainant is situated more than 700 yards further to the alleged place and electricity connection has been duly installed in his agricultural land from which his land is being irrigated. Earlier father of the complainant Jagroop Singh has filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the present opposite parties regarding their alleged demand of Rs.38,650/- from him vide memo No.402 dated 27.02.2008 against account No.AP/47/174. The complainant being son of Jagroop Singh persued the said complaint which was decided in favour of Jagroop Singh vide order dated 14.07.2008 with costs of Rs.1,000/- and the opposite parties were directed to withdraw the Provisional Order of Assessment. The opposite parties sent a cheque for Rs.2,170/- in the name of Jagroop Singh in compliance of the above order but by that time, Jagroop Singh had died and now, the complainant has requested the opposite parties to issue the said cheque in favour of the complainant being son and legal heir of Jagroop Singh. Due to this facts, the officials of the opposite party No.2 has shown grudge against the complainant and they have falsely involved him in the alleged theft case by manipulations. The complainant is neither owner of the alleged land nor he knows any Ashik Ali, the thekedar. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have pleaded that the checking was conducted by the officials of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited namely Sh. Parveen Kumar, JE and Narinder Kumar, AJE, in the fields of the complainant on 15.08.2009 and during checking, they found that by laying 80 meter 3 Core Cable (black) from the motor of one Hakam Singh to the fields of the complainant Jagtar Singh, 7.50 BHP motor was running unauthorizedly in the fields of the complainant. A person present there namely Ashik Ali was asked about the same who conveyed that the owner of the land is Jagtar Singh S/o Jagroop Singh and he took the land from said Jagtar Singh on theka basis in the same condition i.e. alongwith the motor and the checking staff found it to be case of theft of electricity and unauthorized 3 core cable was taken into possession and accordingly, the checking report was prepared at the site by the checking staff in the presence of said Ashik Ali, representative of the complainant and a site plan has been drawn on the checking report itself as per the existing condition and the representative of the complainant put his signatures on the checking report in token while admitting the same to be correct and accordingly, on the basis of said checking report, a demand notice bearing memo No.788 dated 21.08.2009 of Rs.64,258/- on account of theft of electricity was issued to the complainant but the complainant instead of depositing the demanded amount, has filed the present complaint. The complainant has agitated the same matter before the Permanent Lok Adalat and the opposite parties were summoned and reply was filed by the opposite parties. The complainant has withdrawn his application from the Hon'ble Permanent Lok Adalat and has filed the present complaint. Earlier a demand of Rs.64,258/- was raised on account of earlier checking dated 15.08.2009 and the same has no concern with the demand in question. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The checking dated 15.08.2009 at 13:40 hrs p.m. was conducted by the opposite parties and found that by laying 80 meter 3 Core Cable (black) from the motor of one Hakam Singh to the fields of the complainant Jagtar Singh, 7.50 BHP motor was running unauthorizedly in the fields of the complainant. A person present there namely Ashik Ali was asked about the same who conveyed that the owner of the land is Jagtar Singh S/o Jagroop Singh and he took the land from said Jagtar Singh on theka basis in the same condition i.e. alongwith the motor and the checking staff found it to be case of theft of electricity and unauthorized 3 core cable was taken into possession. The checking report was prepared at the site by the checking staff in the presence of said Ashik Ali, representative of the complainant and a site plan has been drawn on the checking report itself as per the existing condition and thereafter, the representative of the complainant put his signatures on the checking report in token of there by admitting the same to be correct. 6. The complainant has submitted that an earlier complaint was filed by the father of the complainant Jagroop Singh which was decided by this Forum in his favour vide oder dated 14.07.2008. This complaint has no concern with the present complaint as the complainant in the present complaint is different from the complaint mentioned by the complainant. 7. A Bill cum show cause notice Ex.R-5 was issued to the complainant by registered post vide receipt No.25/42 dated 15.08.2009. The checking report dated 15.08.2009 Ex.R-4 shows that it has been sent by two officials of the opposite parties and duly supported by affidavits of these two officials. The checking report has been also signed by the representative of the complainant that Ashik Ali who has taken the land on contract. Hence, this is clear case of theft of electricity. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled Pawan Kumar Vs. The Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr. 2009(4) CPR 431 wherein, it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 and 17 – Deficiency in service – Disconnection of supply of electricity on non-payment of demand notice for Rs.23,982/- allegedly raised on account of theft of energy detected during inspection – Complainant-appellant was tenant in the premises – Complainant would be a consumer being beneficiary of services and making payment of electricity bills regularly – Checking report showed that appellant was found using excess load and was committing theft of energy – Report was supported by affidavits of two senior officers – Theft of energy was not to be examined as in criminal cases but was to be decided on basis of preponderance of probability – It stood proved that appellant was indulging in theft of energy and was using excess load – No illegality in impugned order dismissing complaint. Result: Appeal dismissed.” The cable with which, the complainant was committing theft of electricity was duly produced by the opposite parties in their evidence Ex.R-6. The complainant was committing theft of electricity by direct connection from the electric connection of one Hakam Singh. The complainant has been using the direct supply of electricity. Hence, he was using electricity unauthorizedly. Reliance can put on by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (DB) in case titled Kamal Kumar Vs. P.S.E.B. 815 RCR Civil Writ Petition No.20542 of 2008, decided on 18.12.2008 wherein, it has been held that:- “Electricity Act, 2003, Section 126 – Theft of electricity – Petitioner constructing a house and consuming electricity without meter by way of Kundi Connection of (consuming electricity directly from main line) – Theft was detected by a team of engineers of Electricity Board – Authority making a provisional assessment and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,74 lakh unan – It is a clear case of theft – No fault can be found with order of assessment – Contention of petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was given to him before assessment – Contention with tenbale – There is overwhelming evidence to prove that the petitioner had stolen electricity and has committed an offence of thefts – That being so, the court cannot sympathies with such elements.” 8. In view of what has been discussed above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing a demand of Rs.64,258/- vide memo No.788 dated 21.08.2009. Hence, this complaint stands dismissed without any order as to cost. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 23.12.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
| 
