DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.442 of 24-09-2010 Decided on 08-03-2011
Karnail Singh, aged about 47 years, son of Sh.Gurbachan Singh son of Sh.Nikka Singh, resident of village Chauke, Tehsil Rampura Phul, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Executive Engineer, Maur Mandi, Distt. Bathinda. S.D.O., Punjab State power Corporation Ltd., Sub Urban Division, Maur Mandi, Distt. 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.Sarabjit Singh, 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 complainant is holding domestic electric connection bearing A/c No.B53CK500513K with connected load of 1.78 KW. The complainant contended that he has been paying the bills regularly issued by the opposite parties from time to time and no amount on account of electricity consumed by him is pending towards the complainant. The complainant had received a bill dated 01.06.2010 from the opposite parties wherein the consumption of electricity has been shown as 43 units and the consumption charges were of Rs.133/- + E.D. Rs.15/-, meter rent Rs.10/-, service charges Rs.10/- and Rs.2,497/- as arrear of current financial year and Rs.10,490/- under the head of sundry charges. The complainant had requested the opposite parties to correct the bill amount but the opposite parties threatened the complainant either to pay the bill amount or his connection would be disconnected. All the previous bills have been paid by the complainant regularly and the status of the meter is 'O'. The complainant has alleged that he had never been indulged in theft of energy. The opposite parties have never issued any notice and intimation with regard to the alleged demand. No opportunity of being heard has been provided to the complainant. The opposite parties have raised a demand through alleged regular bill. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant was controlling the supply/consumption of electricity be way of unauthorized means and the checking was conducted in the premises of the complainant by the officials of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. in the presence of the complainant/representative and during checking, it was observed that the complainant was indulged in illegal abstructions of electricity by way of connecting the main service line with the supply line by way of by-passing the meter. The complainant/his representative misbehaved with the checking party and the checking report was prepared at the site in the presence of the complainant by the checking party but the complainant/his representative has refused to sign the checking report and the copy of checking has affixed at the front door of premises of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant issued a demand notice No.2479 dated 04.09.2008 thereby raising a demand of Rs.10,370/- u/s 126 of the Electricity Act on the basis of checking dated 22.08.2008 but the complainant did not receive the same and ultimately, the notice was sent through registered post and an application was moved to S.H.O., P.P. Chauke for taking action against the complainant on account of indulged in theft of electricity. The complainant has neither filed objections nor deposited the demanded amount and final order of assessment was passed. The complainant did not pay the demanded amount and it has been charged in the bill dated 01.06.2010 as per rules of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. 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 learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had received a bill dated 01.06.2010 from the opposite parties where the consumption of electricity has been shown as 43 units and the consumption charges were of Rs.133/- + E.D. Rs.15/-, meter rent Rs.10/-, service charges Rs.10/- and Rs.2,497/- as arrears of current financial year and Rs.10,490/- under the head of sundry charges. After receiving the bill, the complainant had requested the opposite parties to correct his bill but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that his meter status was 'O' which means the working of the meter was OK. The opposite parties have never issued any notice or given any intimation with regard to the alleged demand at any stage and did not give any opportunity of hearing to the complainant rather the opposite parties have raised a demand through regular bill. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant was found controlling electricity by unauthorized means. The checking was made in the premises of the complainant by the officials of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. in the presence of the complainant/his representative and during checking, it was observed that the complainant was indulged in illegal abstraction of electricity by way of connecting the main supply line with service line of the complainant. The checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of the complainant by the members of the checking team but the complainant/his representative has refused to sign the checking report and the copy of checking report was affixed at the front door of the premises of the complainant. The complainant was issued a demand notice bearing No.2479 dated 04.09.2008 raising a demand of Rs.10,370/- u/s 126 of the Electricity Act on the basis of checking dated 22.08.2008 but the complainant did not receive the same and the notice was sent through registered post and an application was also moved to SHO, PP Chauke for taking action against the complainant on account of his indulging in theft of electricity. The complainant had neither filed objections nor deposited the demanded amount and final order was passed. As the demand was not paid by the complainant, the said amount has been charged in the bill dated 01.06.2010. 7. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 01.06.2010 Ex.C-4 where the demand of Rs.10,490/- is shown in the column of sundry charges. The checking was made in the premises of the complainant by the officials of the opposite parties headed by Er. Dev Raj J.E., ALM Bakhshi and ALM Gursewak Singh on 22.08.2008 in the presence of the complainant/his representative and during checking it was observed that the complainant was indulged in illegal abstraction of electricity by way of connecting main service line with the supply line by way of by-passing the meter and cable was being used by the complainant. The cable was taken into possession by the checking officials. This checking report has not been signed by the complainant as he has refused to sign the same. The opposite parties have specifically mentioned in their reply that the complainant has refused to sign and receive the checking report which was affixed on the front door of his house. Thereafter, the demand notice bearing memo No.2479 dated 04.09.2008, raising a demand of Rs.10,370/- u/s 126 of the Electricity Act was sent to the complainant through registered post. The copy of dispatch receipt has been placed on file by the opposite parties to prove their version. 8. The complainant has alleged that the demand shown in the bill was never conveyed to him that on what account, this demand has been raised. Hence, the contention of the complainant fails as a perusal of documents shows that the checking was done in the presence of the complainant as he refused to sign the same. It was affixed on the premises of the complainant and then it was sent through registered post but the complainant has neither deposited the money nor filed the objections. The opposite parties have also given an application to SHO, PP, Chauke for taking action against the complainant on account of his indulging in theft of electricity. When the complainant has failed to pay the demanded amount, the same was added in the bill dated 01.06.2010 and when the complainant has failed to pay this amount, this was demanded through bill dated 22.08.2010. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 08-03-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member
| 
