Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/244

Ravinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

G.S Chauhan

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :       244

Date of Institution : 01.09.2016

Date of Decision :    24.01.2017

Ravinder Singh aged about 30 years s/o Nachhattar Singh, s/o Gurdev Singh r/o Village Chak Kalyan, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

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

2. Kulwant Singh Junior Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Phidde Khurd, District Faridkot.

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Bariwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:  Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

Present: Sh G S Chauhan, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh B B Khurana, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to set aside the demand of Rs.23,695/-raised vide bill dt 1.08.2016 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 5,500/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                      Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. Y61CK440210K running in his premises on the name of his father Nachattar Singh, who died on 30.03.2004 and since then, complainant has been using the said connection and paying bills regularly as and when issued. OPs issued a bill dated 1.08.2016, for Rs.46,192/-in which Rs.23,695/-were included as sundry charges. On receiving the same complainant visited the office of OPs and made request to withdraw the same, but Ops did not pay any heed to his request. Complainant made many requests to OP-2 to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.23,695/-. Act of OPs in raising huge demand of sundry charges is illegal and unlawful and refusal by OPs to withdraw the said amount amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,500/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                    Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 6.09.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                       On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Present complaint involves theft of energy and as per orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, District fora are barred from hearing the cases involving theft of energy in which FIR is lodged and in present case also, letter no. 1353 dt 26.05.2016 is written to Inspection Anti Power Theft Station, Bathinda to lodge FIR against the complainant. Moreover, complainant has concealed the material fact that he was committing theft of power by tampering with ME seals of meter to make unauthorized access to internal parts of meter. Complainant has levelled false allegations and has filed the present complainant with malafide intention to harass the Ops. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted bill in question showing sundry charges of Rs.23,696/- was sent to complainant on the basis of checking of meter in ME Lab at Sri Muktsar Sahib. Sundry charges are charged to complainant only on the basis of ME Lab report dt 23.06.2016 as he was indulging in theft of energy by tampering with the seals of meter. Complainant was supplied with checking report dt 23.05.2016 wherein it was clearly described that mechanical meter of complainant was changed to electromagnetic meter as routine vide challan dt 23.05.2016 and it was found that both the seals of meter were tampered and body of meter was also tampered to reach the internal parts of meter in order to control the reading with the help of some artificial means for committing theft of energy. Checking report was prepared in M E Lab and is signed by Sen.Ex.Enforcement JE/AAE sub div. Muksar JE Enforcement Muktsar and JE sub div Bariwala and to follow up the action, a bill cum show cause notice dt 26.05.2016 was issued to complainant. Allegations levelled by complainant are totally wrong, rather complainant himself was committing theft of energy by tampering with the seals of the meter and it is proved in ME Lab Report. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                  Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2  to 6 and closed the same.

6                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs  tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-5 and closed the evidence.

7                Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is having a domestic electric connection bearing running in his premises on the name of his father, who passed away on 30.03.2004 and since then, complainant has been using the said connection and paying bills regularly. OPs issued a bill dated 1.08.2016, for Rs.46,192/- in which Rs.23,695/-were included as sundry charges and on receiving the same, complainant visited the office of OPs and made request to withdraw the same, but Ops did not pay any heed to his request. It is further submitted that demand raised by OPs for sundry charges is totally wrong and illegal. Act of OPs in raising huge demand of sundry charges of Rs.23,695/-is illegal and unlawful and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 6.

 8                    To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of  consumer. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this case. The Ops have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees and complainant should approach such committees to settle his dispute, so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. He has stressed mainly on the point that present complaint involves theft of energy and as per orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, District fora are barred from hearing the cases involving theft of energy in which FIR is lodged and in present case also, letter no. 1353 dt 26.05.2016 is written to Inspection Anti Power Theft Station, Bathinda to lodge FIR against the complainant. Moreover, complainant has concealed the material fact that he was committing theft of power by tampering with ME seals of meter to make unauthorized access to internal parts of meter. OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted bill in question showing sundry charges of Rs.23,695/- was sent to complainant on the basis of checking of meter in ME Lab at Sri Muktsar Sahib. It is averred that allegations levelled by complainant are totally false, after thought and are made only to justify his own mis-deeds. Sundry charges are charged only on the basis of ME Lab report as he was indulging in theft of energy by tampering with the seals of meter. Complainant was supplied with checking report dt 23.05.2016 wherein it was clearly described that mechanical meter of complainant was changed to electromagnetic meter as routine vide challan dt 23.05.2016 and it was found that both the seals of meter were tampered and body of meter was also tampered to reach the internal parts of meter in order to control the reading with the help of some artificial means for committing theft of energy. Checking report was prepared in M E Lab and is signed by Sen.Ex.Enforcement JE/AAE sub div. Muksar JE Enforcement Muktsar and JE sub div Bariwala and to follow up the action, a bill cum show cause notice dt 26.05.2016 was issued to complainant. Allegations of complainant are totally wrong, rather complainant himself was committing theft of energy by tampering with the seals of the meter and it is proved in ME Lab Report. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9                        We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

10                       The case of the complainant is that he has a domestic electric connection running in his house and he is regularly paying all the electricity charges. He received a bill dt 1.08.2016 in which the amount of Rs 23,695/- is charged as sundry charges and the OPs are not entitled to recover this amount from complainant. In reply, OPs have sternly denied all the allegations of complainant stressing mainly on the point that complainant was involved in committing theft of energy and this fact is proved in ME Lab Checking report, wherein it is clearly mentioned that mechanical meter of complainant was changed to electromagnetic meter as routine vide challan dt 23.05.2016 and during checking, it was found that both the seals of meter were tampered and body of meter was also tampered to reach the internal parts of meter in order to control the reading with the help of some artificial means for committing theft of energy. Checking report was prepared in M E Lab and is signed by Sen.Ex.Enforcement JE/AAE sub div. Muksar JE Enforcement Muktsar and JE sub div Bariwala and to follow up the action, a bill cum show cause notice dt 26.05.2016 was issued to complainant.

11                Ld Counsel for OPs has relied upon law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, order dt 13.01.2015 passed in Revision Petition No.1112 of 2014 and relevant portion thereof is reproduced as:“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21 (b) Electricity Act, 2003, Sections 126 and 135 Electricity-Theft of – Disconnection – Mental condition of ill member of family disturbed taken to hospital-Substantial expenditure incurred in treatment-Death occurred-Claim for alleged deficiency in service-Compensation and damages Complaint file-Allowed by District Forum-Appeal against it before State Commission-Dismissed. Hence, revision petition  before National Commission-consumer Fora would not have jurisdiction to entertain complaint and got into question as to whether there was actually theft of electricity or not-Liberty granted to approach appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance-Revision Petition dismissed” Ld Counsel for OPs also relied upon another authority Nirmala Devi Vs Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another dated 11.08.2014 wherein it is held that perusal of record reveals that demand has been raised on the basis of tampering of meter seals, which amounts to theft prima facie. In such circumstances, Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and ld District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be dismissed”. The Forum has closely appreciated the above said authorities. The Hon’ble National Commission has laid down the law that when the case is of theft of electricity under Sections 126 and 135 Electricity, then, Consumer Fora would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and got into question as to whether there was actually theft of electricity or not. Liberty granted to approach appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance and revision petition dismissed. With further observations, if there is a case of theft, Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

12             In the light of above discussion and evidence and documents and case law produced by the OPs, we are fully convinced with arguments advanced by ld counsel for OPs and are of considered opinion that complaint involves theft of energy and therefore, it is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 24.01.2017

                                Member                       President                                           (P Singla)                               (Ajit Aggarwal)