BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/868  of 1.10.2010 

                                                Decided on:          25.8.2011

Narinder Singh S/o Dhian Singh, Vilage & Post Office Kulwano, Tehsil and District Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

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

2.                 Assistant Engineer, Operation, Sub-Division, Patran, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., 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:     None

For opposite parties:     Sh.Pawan Puri, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is the holder of the electricity connection bearing account No.KF-88/0652. He has been depositing the charges of the electricity bills regularly and without any default. The status of the meter has been described as ‘OK’ and the seals of the meter were intact.        

2.       The ops had conducted a checking of the electricity connection on  20.8.2010and issued the order of assessment vide memo no.723 dated 31.10.2008 having raised the demand of Rs.39165/- based on the allegations that one submersible motor of 1BHP was being operated by putting a hook on the service line and connected load was of 5.36KW.

3.       The complainant requested the ops many a times that he had not committed any theft of the energy and the order of assessment was without any basis and that the allegations of the theft were baseless. No copy of the checking report was attached with the order of assessment. No copy of the checking report was handed over to the complainant. No signatures of the complainant were obtained on any checking report. Thus describing the demand of Rs.39165/- and of Rs.18000/- as the compounding fee to be illegal, the  complainant has approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act)  for quashing the demand and further to direct the ops not to disconnect the supply of the electricity connection of the complainant and he be also awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and the harassment suffered by him at the hands of the ops.

4.       The ops on being put to notice appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the officials of the ops had conducted the checking of the electricity connection of the complainant on 20.8.2010 and the complainant was found committing theft of the electricity, who had been making a use of 1BHP motor unauthorizedly by putting a hook on the supply line. The complainant was found using double supply having installed 2/c PVC cable underground and he had also installed a change over switch. The mode and manner of committing theft of the energy has been explained in the checking report. The checking was conducted in the presence of the representative of the complainant who had also counter signed the checking report in token of the correctness therefore.

5.       It is further averred that on the basis of the checking report the concerned officer of the ops had passed the order of provisional assessment under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 having raised the demand of Rs.39165/- and the complainant was afforded the opportunity to file the objections advised to ask for the personal hearing but he failed to file any objections before the competent authority and in that way the complainant had admitted his guilt. 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 and the evidence of the complainant was closed by order of the Forum.

7.       On the other hand on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence, Ex.R1   the sworn affidavit of JE Gurmeet Singh, Ex.R4 the sworn affidavit of Er.Tarun Sharma both of ops no.2 alongwith documents,    Ex.R2 and R3 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

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

 9.      Ex.R2 is the copy of the checking report dated 20.8.2010 got proved by the ops with the assistance of the sworn affidavits, Exs.R1 and R4 of JE Gurmeet Singh and Er.Tarun Sharma of op no.2 who had conducted the checking of the electricity connection of the complainant on 20.8.2010 and whereby the complainant was found committing theft of the energy having tapped the main PVC service line. The consumer had a double supply. Near the house from the connection of the motor a 2/c PVC was made underground and the same was connected with a change over lying underground. One submersible motor was being run with the direct supply. It was suggested to shift the meter outside the house by issuing the MCO.

10.     On the basis of the checking report the ops had sent the order of provisional assessment conveyed vide memo no.923 dated 31.8.2010 having raised the demand of Rs.39165/- on account of theft of the energy. The complainant was also apprised about his right to raise the objections before the Sr.Xen Patran as the designated authority vide Electricity Supply code and Related Matters Regulation 2007, in case he was not agreeable to the order of provisional assessment. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant failed to raise any objections against the order of provisional assessment.

11.     It was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that the checking was conducted in the presence of Sahib Singh, representative of the complainant who had counter signed the checking report in token of the correctness of the same as stated by the two deponents namely Er.Gurmeet Singh in his sworn affidavit,Ex.R1 and Er.Tarun Sharma in his sworn affidavit,Ex.R4.There is however, no statement to have been made by the complainant in his sworn affidavit.Ex.C1 that Sahib Singh was not present at the time of the checking and that the checking report was not signed by him.

12.     Sh.Pawan Puri, the learned counsel for the ops placed reliance on the citation 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 for the observations, “in case the consumer refuses to sign the inspection report and does not co-operate with the inspection 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.”

13.     In view of our aforesaid discussion, it would appear that the complainant was found committing theft of the electricity by way of tapping the service line and making a use of the same for the purpose of running 1BHP submersible motor. The evidence led by the ops in this regard is found to be very much cogent and convincing. On the other hand the complainant despite having been apprised vide the order of provisional assessment about his right to raise the objections before the designated authority in case he was not agreeable to the order of provisional assessment failed to raise any objections and therefore, in the light of the citation Uttari Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. Versus Karam Chand, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:25.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President