BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/760 of 3.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          14.9.2011

Jaswinder Kumar s/o Sh.Prem Chand r/o House No.336 Street No.4

Abchal Nagar, Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

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

2.                   Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., North Patiala,Near Office of Zia Parishad, Sirhind Road, 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.G.S.Sidhu, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.Nitin Goyal, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant is a co-owner of the house no.336 street No.4 Abchal Nagar, Patiala, in which the electricity connection bearing account No.SR14/407 is lying installed in the name of Mohan Singh. Mohan Singh was the previous owner of the house.

2.       The complainant received letter no.214 dated 21.6.2010 from the ops having raised the demand of Rs.47,233/- i.e. Rs.32233/- on account of theft of the energy and Rs.15000/- as the compounding charges on the allegation that the complainant had committed theft of the electricity by tampering with ME seals of the meter.

3.       It is averred that the complainant never committed theft of the electricity and therefore, the said demand is stated to be illegal and against the rules and regulations.

4.       It is also averred that the electricity meter of the complainant was not got checked from the ME Lab in the absence of which the demand is baseless.

5.       The ops threatened to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant and in order to save the disconnection, the complainant deposited the theft amount of Rs.32233/- vide receipt no.535 dated 14.6.2010 and Rs.15000/- vide challan No.4.8.2010.

6.       Describing the act of the ops in  having raised the said amount as a deficiency of service, 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 to refund the amount of Rs.47233/- with interest @ 18% per annum; to pay him Rs.20000/- by way of compensation for the harassment and the mental trauma suffered by him and further to pay him Rs.10,000/- as costs of the complaint.

7.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia, that the complainant is not a consumer; that the complainant having admitted his guilt deposited the amount without having preferred any objections before the Appellate Authority and Statutory Body Constituted  under the Electricity Act,2003

( for short the Act of 2003)and that the Forum lacks the jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Act. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is averred that the complainant is not a consumer of the electricity connection bearing account No.SR14/407 which has been installed in the name of Mohan Singh. It is averred that during a checking made by the inspecting team comprised of Hardev Singh, AAE,Reethkheri and the Meter Inspector  Surinder Sharma, the ME seals of the meter were found to have been tampered with. The representative of the complainant had signed the checking report

8.       On the basis of the checking report a demand of Rs.47233/- had raised from the complainant vide letter no.214 dated 21.6.2010.When the complainant had come to know that the ops had recommended for the registration of the FIR vide letter no.215 dated 21.6.2010, in order to save his skin the complainant approached this Forum .  After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

9.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C7 and his 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 Hardev Singh, AEE  Reethkheri alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R4 and  closed their evidence.

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

12.     First of all we take up the objections raised by the ops that the complainant is not a consumer of the complainant and that the connection was installed in the name of Mohan Singh.Ex.C2, is the copy of the sale deed dated 9.4.2003 to have been executed by Mohan Singh s/o Pritam Singh R/o Rasulpur Sadian regarding the sale of one residential house situate in the area of village Rasulpur alongwith the rights of the electricity, water sewerage etc.

13.     The complainant Jaswinder Kumar in his sworn afidavit,Ex.C1, has disclosed about his being the co-owner of house No.336 street no.4, Abchal Nagar,Patiala and that electricity connection bearing account No.SR14/407 is installed in the same in the name of previous owner Mohan Singh. In that way it would appear that the complainant is making a use of the aforesaid electricity connection with the consent of the  previous owner in whose name the same was installed by the ops and consequently he is to be treated as a consumer as per the definition of the same given under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act

14.     Now coming to the merits of the complaint, it is alleged by the complainant that he had deposited the amount of Rs.32223/- vide receipt no.536 dated 14.6.2010 and Rs.15000/- vide receipt dated 4.8.2010 because he was threatened by the ops to disconnect the supply to the electricity connection and therefore in order to save to disconnection he had to deposit the said amount. However, the said plea taken up by the complainant is belied from the fact that the checking of the electricity connection was made on 3.5.2010 as would appear fromEx.R2, the copy of the checking report as proved by the ops with the help of the sworn affidavit,Ex.R1 of AAE Hardev Singh of Reethkheri,whereby the seals of the meter had been found tampered withy.Ops had issued the order of provisional assessment(copy Ex.R3) vide memo no.214 dated 21.6.2010 having raised the demand of Rs.32233/- on account of theft of the energy, whereas the complainant had deposited the amount earlier there to on 14.6.2010 vide receipt no.535 as disclosed by the complainant in para no.6 of the complaint. Therefore, it could not be argued on behalf of the complainant that he had deposited the amount of the order of provisional assessment under any threat because by the time he had deposited the amount, the order of provisional assessment had not been issued.

15.     On the one hand the complainant wanted to avoid the disconnection of his connection and the criminal proceedings but on the other hand he has described the act of the ops in having raised the demand as a deficiency of service on the ground that the meter was not got tested from the M.E.Lab. Had the complainant deposited the amount under protest and still persisted for the checking of the meter by the ops in the M.E.Lab , there would have been a justification on the part of the complainant to approach this Forum but the complainant having deposited the amount before the order of provisional assessment was issued, it would only meant that the complainant admitted his guilt and deposited the amount of his own and without any protest.

16.     We failed to understand as to what sort of deficiency on the part of the ops is disclosed in the complaint. It is no where alleged by the complainant that even after the deposit of the amount of Rs.32223/- on 14.6.2010, he had requested the ops to get the meter tested from the M.E.lab.Therefore, we do not find any deficiency of service of any kind on the part of the ops.Consequently we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:14.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President