DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.370 of 18-08-2010

Decided on 05-01-2011

1. Gurnam Kaur wd/o Lal Singh (Mother of Sikander Singh)

    

2. Baljit Kaur widow of Sikander Singh

   .

3. Guranditta Singh S/o Sikander Singh,

    

All are legal heirs of Sikander Singh son of Lal Singh, resident of House No.24238, Guru Ki Nagari, Near

Summer Hill School, Bathinda.

.......Complainants

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through Chief Engineer/Operation, Bathinda Circle, Bathinda.

    

2. Senior XEN (Operational), Powercom, City Division, Bathinda.

    

3. SDO/AE, Powercom, Civil Lines, Sub Division, Bathinda.

......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.Rajan Singla, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Lovenish Garg, 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 complainant died during the pendency of this suit. The legal heirs of the complainant were allowed to contest this complaint vide order dated 15.11.2010. The brief facts of the complaint are that the deceased complainant is holding an electric meter No.1090959 and account number B-12 RW-370328 A. The deceased complainant himself residing at Village Akalia Jalal and the said premises is being used by his cousin Gurjant Singh son of Amar Singh. On 26.05.2009, Gurjant Singh alongwith his wife went to Australia to meet their children and came back India on 08.04.2010. During the said period, no body was residing at the above said premises except one care taker. On 02.08.2010, the Enforcement Wing of the opposite parties had raided/checked the premises of the complainant and made a case of theft of electricity on the ground that the seal has been broken and the meter has been tampered and without any proper checking, removed the meter from the premises of the complainant. The complainant has not been given any opportunity of being heard. The opposite parties after removing the meter, have given the direct supply to the premises of the complainant. On 03.08.2010, a provisional assessment order No.784 for Rs.53,114/- was issued to the complainant. The complainant submitted the objection against the abvoesaid demand. The opposite parties declined the objections of the complainant vide order dated 06.08.2010 and issued a final order of assessment. Hence, the complainant has filed this complainant.

2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and taken many legal objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as once a person has approached the Assessing Authority, he cannot approach this Forum. On merit also, the opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant himself admitted the fact that the premises were used by cousin of the complainant. The meter has been checked in the presence of the Gurjant Singh, representative of the complainant and notice was issued to the complainant. The competent authority had declined the objections of the complainant after giving him an opportunity of being heard.

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. Admittedly, the connection is in the name of the complainant-Sikander Singh and his premises in which the connection of electricity was installed, was being used by his cousin-Gurjant Singh. On 26.05.2009, he alongwith his wife went to Australia to meet their children and came back to India on 08.04.2010. During the said period, no body was residing at the above said premises except only one care taker that too at night. During that period, the consumption of electricity was very nominal and the status of the meter was in OK condition. On 02.08.2010, the Enforcement Wing of the opposite parties had raided/checked the premises of the complainant and made a case of theft of electricity on the ground that the seal has been broken and the meter has been tampered and without any proper packing, removed the meter from the premises of the complainant. The complainant got a provisional order of assessment No.784 dated 03.08.2010 for a demand of Rs. 53,114/- alongwith compounding charges of Rs.21,000/-. The complainant duly submitted objections against the abvoesaid demand and the opposite parties after hearing the objections of the complainant, had declined the objections vide order dated 06.08.2010.

6. The legal objection taken by the opposite parties that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint as the complainant has approached the assessing authority. The remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an additional remedy not in derogation with any other law as Sec-3 of the Act. Hence, this Forum has the power to try adjudicate the present complaint.

7. On 02.08.2010, the Enforcement Wing of the opposite parties had raided/checked the premises of the complainant and made a case of theft of electricity on the ground that the seal has been broken. The raid was conducted in the presence of the Gurjant Singh, representative of the complainant/consumer. He had also signed the checking report. Thereafter, on 03.08.2010, the opposite parties issued a provisional order of assessment No.784 dated 03.08.2010 for a demand of Rs. 53,114/- alongwith compounding charges of Rs.21,000/- to the complainant. The complainant had filed objections before the Chief Engineer vide Ex.C-6 on 05.08.2010, these objections were declined by the said authority and had issued order dated 06.08.2010, Ex.C-7 of Rs.53,114/-. Vide Ex.C-7, the opposite parties have given an opportunity of being heard to Gurjant Singh representative of the complainant who told that he and his family were abroad since 26.05.2009 to 08.04.2010 and has presented a proof of their stay at Australia. The complainant has written in his objections that no body was staying at the premises only one person was staying as care taker at night whereas, the opposite parties have written in their order Ex.C-7 that niece of the consumer was living there. No such proof has been placed on file to show that niece of the consumer was staying there. A further perusal of Ex.C-7 shows that both the M.E. seals have been tampered and it was found that the consumption was being controlled by tampering the inner seals of the meter. The meter was packed in the Card Board box in the presence of Gurjant Singh in the same condition in which it was removed from the place of the installation and it was duly packed and sealed after taking the signatures of Gurjant Singh in the Card Board box and the same was handed over to Ramesh Kumar, ALM. The designated Authority overhauled the account of the complainant and found that the consumption of 2009-2010 was less than of 2008-2009.

8. The complainant submitted the proof of his visit to Australia and submitted that no body was living in the premises during that period except a single person who was a care taker. Obviously, the consumption of the complainant came down as only one person was using the electricity in the premises during the period of 26.05.2009 to 08.04.2010. The meter of the complainant has not been sent and checked in the ME Lab. No letter was ever issued to the complainant to seek his presence in the ME Lab for checking his meter in his presence. Moreover, no FIR has been lodged against the complainant. The opposite parties have not mentioned that how the ME seals were tampered. The meter has also not been produced before this Forum to show that how the complainant was committing theft of electricity. When all the allegations of theft are being levelled, it must be supported with cogent and convincing evidence to prove the commencement of the theft.

9. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to quash the memo No.784 dated 03.08.2010 for a demand of Rs. 53,114/- alongwith compounding charges of Rs.21,000/-. The complainant had been directed to deposit Rs.27,000/- vide order dated 20.08.2010 of this Forum for restoration of his electric connection. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.27,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. since deposit of this amount, if paid any. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

05.01.2011 President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member