BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/952  of 3.11.2010 

                                                Decided on:          8.9.2011

Jasbir Kaur aged about 61 years, wife of Late Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, r/o village Mehmudpur Raian, Tehsil and District Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

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

2.                 S.D.O. Operation Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Bahadurgarh, District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.B.M.Singh, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate    

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          Electricity connection bearing accountNo.P41DF100220P was issued in the name of Sukhvinder Singh, the late husband of the complainant who had expired on 27.7.92 and after his death the complainant has been making a use of the electricity connection installed at the residential house of the complainant in village Mehmudpur Raian.

2.       The complainant received a demand notice bearing No.2148 dated 21.10.2010 with the allegations that a checking was conducted on 16.10.2010 by SDO Bahadurgarh and it was found that the complainant was committing theft of the electricity and therefore, she was burdened with   the penalty of Rs.22442/- and further asked to deposit Rs.12000/- as compounding fee.

3.       The complainant visited the office of op no.2 and disclosed that no checking had been conducted in her presence or any of her representative. No checking report was given to her nor the signatures of the complainant or her representative were obtained on any checking report. She also preferred representation-cum-objections dated 25.7.2010 against the said demand notice dated 21.7.2010 before op no.2 but who refused to consider the same on the matter and directed the complainant to deposit the penalty amount .

4.       It is also averred by the complainant that the meter having suddenly burnt on 10.6.2010, the same was replaced on 13.10.2010 and only two days of the installation of the new meter the alleged checking was conducted by the officials of the ops.

5.       It is further averred that there is a political rivalry in the village and the opposite group of the complainant is influential and has got contacts with the employees of the ops and therefore, she has been inolved in the case of the theft falsely.

6.       The complainant having described the demand notice no.2148 dated 21.10.2010 to be illegal, null and void , malafide, without jurisdiction etc.  and through the present complaint brought by her under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) prayed for a direction to be issued to the ops not to recover the amount of the same; to pay her Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation for the harassment suffered by her at the hands of the ops and also to pay Rs.5500/- as costs of the complaint.

7.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act as the connection was issued in the name of Sukhvinder Singh. It is submitted that on 16.10.2010 a checking of the connection was conducted by AE Vikas Gill alongwith other members of the team and who found the complainant using the supply in the house by by-passing the electric meter with the help of 8-10 meters wires connected directly with the LT line having stopped the meter. On seeing the employees of the ops the complainant removed the said electric wire from the LT line and refused to hand over the electric wire to the officials of the ops. The checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant.

8.       On the basis of the checking entered at Sr.No.367 of page no.58 of the checking register , a demand notice no.2148  dated 21.10.2010 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003was issued to the complainant having raised the demand of Rs.46,442/- i.e. Rs.34442/- as the penalty for committing theft of the energy and Rs.12000/- as compounding fee, as per the Punjab State Regulatory Commission( Electricity Supply Code and related matter) Regulations,2007. The copy of the checking report was also sent alongwith the demand notice. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

9.       In support of her case, the complainant produced in evidence her sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C6 and her learned counsel closed the evidence.

10.     On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Vikas Gill,SDO of op no.2 alongwith documents,Exs.R2 and R3 closed their evidence.

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

12.     Ex.R2, is the copy of the checking report dated 16.10.2010 as got proved by the ops with the assistance of the sworn affidavit,Ex.R1 of Vikas Gill,SDO of op no.2, who had conducted the checking of the electricity connection bearing account No.P41DF100220P. The consumer had refused to  put her signatures on the checking report. As per the checking report the consumer was found committing theft of the energy by putting a  10 meters  PVC wire on the LT line having stopped the working of the meter.

13.     It was submitted by Sh.B.M.Singh, the learned counsel for the complainant that in case the complainant had refused to acknowledge the checking report, Engineer Vikas Gill,SDO of op no.2 should have got the same signed by a person of the locality but the same was not  got done. Similarly, it was submitted that there is no evidence to show that  the copy of the checking report was given to the complainant. Therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon the checking report and to conclude that the complainant was found committing theft of the energy. In this regard he also placed reliance upon the citation  Punjab State Electricity Board,Faridkot Versus Sarwan Singh 2008(1)CLT 237 of the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory,Chandigarh.

14.     It was also submitted by the learned counsel of the complainant that there is no evidence to have been led by the ops that any FIR for committing theft of energy was got registered against the complainant and therefore, the demand of Rs.12,000/- made from the consumer on account of the compounding fee was made without any basis and rather the assessing officer can be said to have passed the order of assessment regarding the theft of the eneergy without any basis. In this regard he placed reliance upon the citation Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation City Sub Division, UHBVNL Bahadurgarh Versus Sanjana Swami2009(2)CLT 161 of the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the written statement has been filed by the ops under the signatures of AAE who was not competent to file the same,who is not covered by the authority as provided under Regulation 7 of the Regulations of Conduct of Business  1980 issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board.

15.     On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh.H.S Dhaliwal, the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant admittedly received the provisional order of assessment( copy Ex.C2) whereby the consumer was advised that in case he/she did not agree with the order of provisional assessment, he/she could prefer the objections before SE(Operation) of the OP  at Patiala, a designated authority under Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 within 15 days on receipt of the order of provisional assessment but no such objections were preferred by the complainant against the order provisional assessment. Sh.Dhaliwal placed reliance upon the judgment 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, with the observations, “the inspection report itself bears endorsement made by the inspecting team that the consumer refused to sign the document. In our view, in case the consumer refuses to sign the inspection report and does not co-operate with the inspecting team no eye-brows can be raised against fairness of the inspection. That apart , 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.”

16.     It was also submitted by Sh.Dhaliwal that no where it is alleged by the complainant that the demand of the compounding fee of Rs.12000/- made from the consumer is not warranted and that no FIR regarding the theft of the energy was registered against the consumer.

17.     We have considered the submissions and find that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the ops because Engineer Vikas Gill, deponent of ExR1 has got no reason to have made out the checking report,Ex.R2, with regard to the consumer committing theft of the energy in the manner as suggested in the checking report falsely without having got any motive against the complainant. The failure on the part of the complainant to raise the objections against the order of provisional assessment also goes a long way to support the case of the ops.The complainant had not the cudgel to ask for the cross examination of AEE Vikas Gill that the complainant on seeing the checking team removed the 8-10 meters PVC wire connected with the LT line and she refused to handover the same and to put her signature on the checking report. In the light of the observations made 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 (Supra), we do not find any reason to disbelieve the checking report as also the subsequent action  taken on the same by the ops having raised the demand of Rs.34,442/- on account of the theft of the energy and consequently we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:8.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President