DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.570 of 13-12-2010 Decided on 21-04-2011
Sewak Singh, aged about 60 years, son of Gurdial Singh, resident of Aklia Jalal, Tehsil Phul, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman. Exective Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Bhagta Bahi Ka. SDO/AEE, Punjab State power Corporation Ltd., Distribution, Sub Division, Bhagta Bhai Ka.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.R.D.Goyal, 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 Tubewell connection bearing No.AL415 of 17.5 BHP. The complainant got a memo/final order No.1933 dated 03.07.2009, received on 07.07.2009 under Section 126 of the Electricity Act for the payment of Rs.77,356/- on the basis of checking report dated 01.07.2009 in which it is written that the motor of 10 BHP was caught at the time of checking. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties got the payment of Rs.77,356/- vide receipt No.448 dated 08.07.2009 forcibly from the complainant. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that the alleged checking dated 01.07.2009 neither made in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained; the said checking report was not sent to the complainant; the complainant neither committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly; no provisional notice or memo regarding the alleged theft was ever issued to the complainant; neither any opportunity to file objections was given to the complainant nor he was called by any authority to give explanation regarding the false case of theft; the connection of the complainant is being checked by the officials of the opposite parties in routine but they never pointed out any defect regarding alleged theft. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the connection of the complainant was checked on 01.07.2009 by AEE Enforcement and Addl. AEE Enforcement. At the time of checking, it was found that the electric tube well connection which was sanctioned for 17.5 BHP motor, was not running at the time of checking and the motor was off at that time but another motor of 10 BHP Submersible was running at the time of checking and this motor was being used by the complainant illegally without any permission of the opposite parties. A copy of checking report was supplied to the complainant who after receiving the same, signed the checking report and did not raise any objection at the time of checking. On the basis of said checking, provisional order of assessment No.1933 dated 03.07.2009 was issued to the complainant for the payment of Rs.77,356/-. The complainant deposited the said amount with his free will without any objection. 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 complainant is holding Tubewell connection bearing No.AL415 of 17.5 BHP. He got a memo/final order No.1933 dated 03.07.2009, received on 07.07.2009 under Section 126 of the Electricity Act for the payment of Rs.77,356/- on the basis of checking report dated 01.07.2009 on the pretext that the motor of 10 BHP caught at the time of checking. No provisional notice was ever issued to the complainant before the final notice. The opposite parties got deposited the payment of Rs.77,356/- vide receipt No.448 dated 08.07.2009 from the complainant. The complainant has challenged the memo No.1933 on various grounds that the checking dated 01.07.2009 was neither made in the presence of the complainant nor the signatures of the complainant were obtained; the checking dated 01.07.2010 was one sided and unilateral; the checking report dated 01.07.2009 was not sent to the complainant; neither any opportunity to file objections was ever given to the complainant nor he was called by any authority to give explanation regarding theft. Moreover, the power cut is going on in the Punjab state and due to shortage of power, the complainant is unable to use the electricity. The connection of the complainant was being checked by the officials of the opposite parties in routine but they never pointed out any defect or made any complaint regarding the alleged theft; no final order of assessment was made which is clear violation of the mandatory statutory provisions and no evidence of theft was collected at the spot. The complainant has already deposited the amount of Rs.77,356/- under compelled circumstances. 6. The opposite parties have admitted that the complainant is holding tubewell connection for 17.5 BHP which was sanctioned in the name of the complainant but he has been cultivating the land with the help of that tubewell connection because at the time of checking, 7.5 BHP motor was running. The connection of the complainant was checked on 01.07.2009 and at the time of checking, it was found that the electric tubewell connection which was sanctioned for 17.5 BHP motor, was not running at the time of checking and the motor was off at that time but another motor of 10 BHP Submersible was running at the time of checking and this motor was being used by the complainant without any permission of the opposite parties. This checking was made by AEE Enforcement and Addl. AEE Enforcement. At the time of checking, a copy was supplied to the complainant who after receiving the checking report, signed the same and did not raise any objection. On the basis of this checking, provisional order of assessment No.1933 dated 03.07.2009 was issued to the complainant for recovery of Rs.77,356/-. According to the opposite parties, the complainant had deposited the said amount with his free will without any objection. 7. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the complainant has got a notice of final order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act dated 03.07.2009 for Rs.77,356/- and in this regard, they have specifically mentioned that 10 BHP motor was running illegally. 8. A perusal of checking report Ex.R-3 shows that it has been signed by Jabarjit Singh and it has been written on this that the sanctioned motor of 17.5 BHP was not running at the time of checking, instead another motor of 10 BHP Submersible, was running and this motor was being used by the complainant without permission of the opposite parties. The opposite parties in their evidence Ex.R-2 which is the affidavit of Mohan Singh, AEE Enforcement has deposed in his affidavit that the checking was made in the presence of Jabarjit Singh who was representative of the consumer, at the time of checking, the copy of the checking report was supplied to the complainant who after receiving the copy, signed the same and he did not raise any objection at the time of checking. In their written statement on merit in para no.4, the opposite parties have mentioned that “At the time of checking, the copy of checking report was supplied to the complainant who after receiving the copy of the checking report, signed the same and did not raise any objection.” So, both, the reply and Ex.R-2 are contradictory. The opposite parties have miserably failed to prove that who was Jabarjit Singh. The complainant has placed on file two affidavit Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 of his neighbours who have specifically deposed in their affidavit that no checking was ever made on 01.07.2009 from morning to evening in the premises of the complainant. The opposite parties have also failed to prove that how the copy of checking report was supplied to the complainant as it was neither pasted outside the premises of the complainant nor sent by registered post. As no copy of dispatch register is placed on file, the opposite parties have failed to follow the procedure laid down for the issuance of the checking report and notice to the complainant under their own rules and regulations. Further, the complainant is holding sanctioned 17.5 BHP motor, he has no need to use 10 BHP motor illegally. The impugned demand raised by the opposite parties has already been deposited by the complainant vide receipt No.448 dated 08.07.2009 Ex.C-6. 10. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation and the memo No.1933 dated 03.07.2009 for a sum of Rs.77,356/- is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.77,356/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 08.07.2009 till realization. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 21-04-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
