BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/935 of 28.10.2010 

                                                Decided on:          13.9.2011

Sujan Singh aged about 67 years son ofS.Partap Singh R/o village Nohra, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Member Secretary/CMD, The Mall, Patiala.

2.                 Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., (Power Com), Operation, Sub Division, Chaunda,District Sangrur.

                                                                             ----------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:     Sh.Manjit Singh, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.Pawan Puri, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection bearing account No.P57CH280212X falling under the jurisdiction of Asstt. Engineer PSPCL(Operation) Sub Division Chaunala District Sangrur.

2.       The complainant has been depositing the energy bills regularly without any default on the basis of the consumption recorded and even the status of the meter has been shown as OK.

3.       The ops issued letter no.559 dated 21.10.2010 fior Rs.22741/- on the basis of the alleged unauthorised use of the energy and further having demanded Rs.11880/- as the compounding fee under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003.It was disclosed in the letter that the wire was put  into the grip after having connected with the terminal box.The meter was lying stopped while the supply was running directly.It was a case of the theft of the energy.

4.       It is averred that the afroesaid letter / order of assessent has been issued without any basis because no checking was made in the presnece of the complainant nor any checking report wasgot signed from him. No copy of the checking report was got signed from him. No copy of the checking report was supplied to the complainant. The false allegations regartding the theft of the energy had been raisedagainst the complainant.

5.       On receipt of the aforesaid order of assessment, the complainant visited the office of op no.2 and requested to withdraw the letter/order of assessment whomade a refusal and rather the ops threatened so as to pressurise him to pay the amount within 7 days . Accordingly, the complainant  approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act) for quashing the oreer of assessment qua the demand of the compounding charges of Rs.11880/- and to award him the compensation in a sum of Rs.10000/- for inconvenience and mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops.

6.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written statement having raised preliminary objections, interalia, that the Forum lacks the jurisdiction to try the complaint as the same is barred under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is averred that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked by the checking oficer on 19.10.2009 and the complainant was found committing theft of the electricity by by-passing the meter.The complainant had erected a cable from the incoming block/terminal phase and the same was found inserted in the grips. The grips were found removed.The meter was found stopped. The supply of the electricity was being consumed by the complainant. The checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant but he refused to counter sign the checking report. A copy of the checking reportwas delivered to the complainant.

7.       On the basis of the checking, the order of assessment was conveyed to the complainant vide memo no.589 dated 21.10.2010 having raised the demand of Rs.22741/- .The complainant failed to prefer any objections against the demand notice. After controverting the other alleations of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence,Ex.C1, his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C6 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

9.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1 the sworn affidavit of Amandeep Singh Dhindsa,SDO, Operation Sub Division, Ex.R2 the sworn affidavit of Mukesh Kumar,SDO,Operation Sub Divison Amargargh, Ex.R3, the sworn affidavit of Narender Singh,JE operation Sub Division Chaunda i.e. op no.2 alongwith the documents,Exs.R4 and R5 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

10.     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.

11.     Here at the outset it may be noted that admittedly the case pertains to Operation Sub Division Chaunda of the PSPCL falling in District Sangrur but the complaint has been filed before District Forum, patiala on the ground that the order of assessment was received by the complainant in his village Nohra falling in Tehsil Nabha District Patiala.

12.     It was also submitted by Sh.Manjit Singh, the learned counsel for the complainant that op no.1 i.e. PSPCL has also been made an op through its Member Secretary/CMD,Patiala and therefore, this Forum has got the territorial jurisdictrion to try the complaint.

13.     Here, it may be noted that as per the allegations made in the complaint, when the complainant had received order of assessment he approached op no.2 at Chaunda which falls withint the district of Sangrur and in that way the complainant was very much aware about the fact that the remedy is to be redressed against op no.2 who is located within the district of Sangrur.

14.     In the case of the citation Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.2010(1)CLT 252 , Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed, “Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret ,we can not agree with the leaned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion  an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 19(2)(b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted it will  mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in  Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati  or any where in India where a branch office of company is situated. We can not agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression branch office in the amended  Section 17(2) would mean the branch where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plan and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the  Act but such departure is sometimes necessary( as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity[vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation.Nitin Edition, 2004 P.79p

          In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

In the present case since the cause of action arose at

15.     It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant is resident of village  Nohra falling in Tehsil Nabha Distict  Patiala and that he was delivered the order of provisional assessment,Ex.R5 in village Naura and therefore, the District Forum Patiala has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

16.     We have considered the submissions.When the complainant has been depositing his charges of the energy bills in the office of op no.2, at Chaunda falling in District Sangrur, the complainant very much knew that the office of op no.2 falls within the territorial jurisdictrion of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Foru,Sangrur and therefore, the complainant could not choose a different Forum at Patiala simply becauswe he isresiding in village Naura. The entire set up of the electric line whereby the complainant had been suplied the energy falls within the domain of op no.2 and therefore, the complainant should have brought the complaint before District Consumder Disputes Redressal Forum,Sangrur and this Forum laks territorial jurisdiction.

17.     As regards the merits of the complaint, the ops have got proved,Ex.R4, the copy of the checking report dated 19.10.2010 with the assitance of Mukesh Kumar,SDO Operation Sub Division,Amargarh of the PSPCL, whose sworn afidavit is Ex.R2 and Narender Singh JE of Operation Sub Division Chaunda, whose sworn affidavit, Ex.R3 who had conducted the checking. As per the checking report,Ex.R4, the consumer was reported to have refused to put his signature on the checking report.As per the checking report, the consumer had connected the grip with the help of a wire further connected with the incoming terminal block. The grip had been removed.The meter was lhying stoped whilethe supply was running.

18.     It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that it is no where recorded in the checking report that the copy of the checking report was supplied to the consumer.

19.     It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainantthat thevery wire used by the complainant for committing theft of the energy having connected the incoming terminal block and the grip was not produced before the Forum.

20/.    It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the criteria in having calculated the amount of the penalty of Rs.22741/- on account of theft o energy has not been disclosed in the proviional order of assessment,Ex.R5.

21.     It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the omplainant that the complainant has produced in evidence,Ex.C4, the copy of the bill dated 19.9.2010 for the consumptionperiod of 28.6.2010 to 24.8.2010 i.e. before the conducting of the checking of the connection showing the consumption of 302 units and Ex.C6 the copy of the bill dated 31.12.2010 for the consumption period of 7.11.2010 to 31.12.2010 i.e. subsequent to the conducting of the checking showing the consumnption of 201 units in order to show that the penalty has been imposed upon the complainant in the light of the previous and subsequent consumption of the electricity.He also placed reliance upon the citation Charan Singh Vs.

22.     On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh.Pawan Puri, the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant despite having been apprised aboiut the orderof provisional assessment,Ex.R5 that in case he was not aggreable the order of assessment, he could prefer the objections with 15 days before SE Distribution,PSPCL,Patiala a designated authority under the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007but the complainant failed to prefer any objections with regard to any matter including the criteria adopted by the ops in making an assessment of the penalty to be charged from the complainant on account of theft of the energy. He also placed reliance upon the citation Charan Singh Versus P.S.E.B.(Chairman) and Another 2006(1)JRC 206 of the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Chandigarh, for the observations that , “ the P.S.E.B. could not raise the demand on the bare report of the Meter Inspector which had not even signed by the complainant.There was also no evidence regarding the taking into possession the PVC wire allegedly used for stealing electricity energy.”

23.     On the other hand it was submitted by Sh.Pawan Puri, the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant despite having been apprised vide the order of provisional assessment,Ex.R5, that in casehe was not agreeable with the ordere of assessment he could prefer the objections within 15 days before SE Distribution,P.S.P.C.L. Patiala, a Designated Authroity, under the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, but the complainant failed to prefer any objections with regad to any matter including the criteria  adopted by the ops in making an assessment of the penalty to be charged from the complainant on account of theft of energy. He also placed reliance upon 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 observed, “The inspection report itself bears endorsement made by the inspection team that the consumer refused to sign the document. In our view, 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.”

24.     It was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that in the matter of making an assessment regarding the penalty to be imposed upon a consumer being committed theft of the energyu,it was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that it provided under regulation

25.     Similkarly it is provided under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act 2003 that if the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which period such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during wich such unauthorised use of electricit7y has taken place can not be ascertain such perios shall be limtied to a nperiod of 12 months immiedately preceding the date of inception

26      It was for the assessing officer to have ascertained the actual period of unauthorised use of electricity and in case the same could not be determined, he had no option but to make an assessment to a limited period of 12 months imediately preceding the date of the inception. The bills,Exs.C4 dated 19.9.2010 for the period 28.6.2010 to 24.8.2010 and Ex.C6 dated 31.12.2010 for the period 7.11.2010 t 31.12.2010 do not in any way provide any criteria to make an assessment of the period regarding the theft of the energy.

27.     We have considerde the submissions and find that the failure on the part of the complainant to prefer any objections against the order of the provisional assessment goes a long way in accepting the plea of the ops in the light o the citation Uttari Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. Versus Karam Chand (Supra).We do not find any fault in the procedure adopted by the ops in having raised the demand of Rs.22741/-having served the complainant with the order of provisional assessment.

28.     As an upshort of our aforesaid dicussion, it would appear not only District Forum Patiala lacks territorial jurisdiction, there are no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.