BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC /10/ 943 of 29.10.2010 

                                                Decided on:          30.9.2011

Raghbir Singh son of Hazura Singh resident of village Rajla Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

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

2.                 S.D.O./A.E.E. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., having its Sub Division at village Badshahpur, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.

                                      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:     Sh.Dalbir Singh, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Smt.Puja Puri , Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

            The complainant is a consumer of domestic electricity connection bearing account No.BF-38/1498.He has been depositing the charges of the electricity and nothing was due against him.

2.       On 19.10.2010, when the complainant was coming back to his house after having sold the crop of the paddy that on the way, the officials working in the office of op no.2 accompanied by their JE intercepted the complainant and demanded the illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- as a Bakshish on account of the festival of Diwali but the complainant did not agree for the same and refused to oblige them.

3.       On the refusal of the complainant to oblige the officials of op no.2, the aforesaid JE accompanied by them prepared letter no.1730 dated 21.10.2010 and handed over the same to the complainant and directed him to deposit the amount of Rs.48560/- on account of theft of the energy having threatened that the failure to deposit will result into the disconnection of the supply.

4.       It is alleged that the allegations made in the said letter are false because the complainant had not ever committed any theft of the energy  and that no official of the ops had ever visited the complainant in the matter of checking the aforesaid connection. Accordingly describing the demand to have been raised by the ops to be illegal and having caused a harassment and mental agony to him, 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 withdraw the letter no.1730 dated 21.10.2010’ to award him the compensation in a sum of Rs.50000/- on account of the harassment and mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops and also to award him Rs.5000/-as costs of the complaint.\

5.       On notice, ops appeared and filed their written version. It is admitted by the ops that the complainant is their consumer but they denied the allegations made in the complaint to be a manipulation. It is averred that as a matter of fact, the electricity connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the ops on 19.10.2010 and the complainant was found committing theft of the energy by by-passing the meter. It was detected by the checking officials that the complainant had made a joint in the main PVC of the service line from the roof of his house and erected 10-11 meters black cable of 2/C PVC for taking the direct supply from the service line. The meter of the complainant was found stopped and the complainant was committing theft of the electricity. The cable was got into possession.

6.       It is further averred that on the basis of the checking, the complainant was served with the demand notice vide memo no.1730 dated 21.10.2010 having raised the demand of Rs.48560/-. He was also advised to file the objections against the order of assessment, if so desired before the competent authority. However, the complainant failed to prefer any objections. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.       In support of case the complainant produced in evidence,Ex.C1 his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C2 to C9 and his learned counsel closed evidence.

8.       On the other hand on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Avinash Rai Garg, SDO Operation of Suburban, Sub Division,PSPCL,Samana,Ex.R2, the sworn affidavit of Er.Naryan Dass,SDO,Operation of op no.2,Ex.R3, the sworn affidavit of JE Davinder Singh of operation City Sub Division Samana, Ex.R4 the sworn affidavit of JE, Vijay Kumar of Operation City Sub Division,Samana alongwith documents,Exs.R5 to R6 and closed their evidence.

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

10.     Ex.R5 is the copy of the checking report dated 19.10.2010 as got proved by the ops with the assistance of the sworn affidavit, Ex.R2 of Naryan Dass,SDO Operation Sub Division, Badshahpur, Ex.R3 the sworn affidavit of JE Davinder Singh of Operation City Sub Division Samana and Ex.R4 the sworn affidavit of JE Vijay Kumar of Operation City Sub Division who had conducted the checking of the connection of the complainant on 19.10.2010.It is deposed consistently by the deponents of the aforesaid affidavits that the checking was conducted in the presence of the representative of the complainant who had counter signed the checking report in token of the correctness there of.

11.     As per the checking report, the consumer was found committing theft of the energy having connected the main PVC service line with the help of 10-11 meter 2c PVC wire. The meter was lying stopped. The said PVC wire was removed and got into possession. In the report there is a description of the connected load of 76 lamps, three power plugs, fans 17, plugs 22 and one submersible motor of 1 KW. The report is shown to have been signed by the representative of the consumer and also by one Sohan Lal.

12.     On the basis of the checking report, the ops had sent the order of provisional assessment,Ex.R6 dated 21.10.2010 having raised the demand of Rs.33552/- on account of theft of the energy and also having advised the complainant to deposit Rs.14100/- on account of compounding charges to avoid the police action.

13.     It was submitted by Sh.Dalbir Singh, advocate, the learned counsel for the complainant that the checking was not conducted in the presence of the complainant and that it is not disclosed as to who was the representative of the complainant in whose presence the checking was conducted. The report is not shown to have been signed by any person of the locality or a respectable of the village. It is also not shown that the copy of the checking report was delivered to the representative of the consumer. The PVC wire being used by the complainant and which was removed from the site was also not produced before the Forum. In this regard he placed reliance upon the citations Punjab State Electricity Board, Dakha Versus Vinod Kumar Bansal 2008(1)CLT 221 of the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory,Chandigarh, Punjab State Electricity Board,Faridkot Versus Sarwan Singh 2008(1)CLT 237 also of the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory,Chandigarh, and Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.(HVPN) Versus Gautam Plastic2008(1)CLT 522 of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

14.     On the other hand, it was submitted by Smt.Puja Puri, the learned counsel for the ops that the checking regarding the electricity connection of the complainant having been made on 19.10.2010 has been got proved by SDO Naryan Dass of op no.2 with the help of his sworn affidavit,Ex.R2 as also with the help of the sworn affidavit,Ex.R3 of Davinder Singh,JE of Operation City Sub Division,Samana and Ex.R4 the sworn affidavit of JE Operation City Sub Division Samana all of whom had conducted the checking and they have categorically deposed that the checking was conducted in the presence of the representative of the consumer who had signed the checking report. A copy of the checking report was also delivered to the representative of the complainant at the site. It was for the complainant to have denied the fact that no representative of him was present at the time of the checking and the same was not signed by him.

15.     Then, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that the officers of the rank of SDO and JEs should not be disbelieved by the Forum in respect of the complainant having been found committing theft of the energy illegally as they have got no motive or malice to depose falsely against the complainant.

16.     Then it was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that despite the complainant having been advised vide the order of provisional assessment,Ex.R6,that in case he was not agreeable to the order of assessment, he could prefer the objections within 15 days before SE,Operation Circle Patiala, A Designated Authority under the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 but he failed to prefer any objections and now he is estopped to raise any eye brow against the checking of his electricity connection made by the competent officers of the ops. She also placed reliance upon the citation Uttri Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. Versus Karam Chand 2010(2)CLT 3 of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

17.     We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that it is not possible for us to disbelieve the version of the ops qua the complainant having been found committing theft of the energy unauthorizedly having put a 10-11 2C PVC wire on the PVC service line with the help of which he was making a use of the electricity in the house having stopped the working of the meter because the complainant had the occasion and the opportunity to raise any objections against the checking report when he was served with the order of provisional assessment,Ex.R6 before the competent authority but he failed to do so. In the light of the citation  Uttri Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. Versus Karam Chand (Supra) we are not inclined to disbelieve the version of the ops.

18.     As a matter of fact the complainant has manipulated the allegations against the ops by way of alleging that on 19.10.2010 he was demanded of Rs.2000/-as a gratuitous amount describing the same as Bakshish on account of festival of Diwali and when he refused to oblige them he was handed over the demand notice no.1730 dated 21.10.2010.It is alleged by the complainant that he had been coming after selling his crop of the paddy but Ex.C6, the copy of J Form, issued by M/s Birbal Dass Surinder Kumar,Commission Agents Rajla, in the name of the complainant would go to show that his crop was sold on 20.10.2010 and not on 19.10.2010.Moreover the order of provisional assessment was issued on 21.10.2010 and not on 19.10.2010 .All this would go to show the  falsity of the complaint and accordingly we are not inclined to find favour with the complainant and dismiss the complaint accordingly.

Pronounced.

Dated:30.9.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President