BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 806 of 15.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          19.9.2011

Gursevak Singh son of Late Sh.Chhotta Singh aged about 38 years, resident of village Behal, Tehsil & District, Patiala.

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

                                      Versus       

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

2.     Assisitant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Sanaur, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     None

For opposite parties:     Sh.Harkirat Singh Dhaliwal , Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is a consumer of AP electricity connection, the particulars of the same having not been disclosed in the complaint, the same also having not been mentioned in the documents i.e. the checking report dated 30.8.21010 and the order of assessment dated 1.9.2010.

2.       The complainant received the demand notice no.1327 dated 1.9.2010 from the ops having raised the demand ofRs.66960/- on account of the theft of the energy and Rs.15000/- as the compounding fee raised on the basis of the checking dated 30.8.2010 having alleged that the theft was being committed with the help of a wire laid between the LT line and the motor starter.

3.       It is averred by the complainant that the said demand is illegal, because the complainant had not committed any theft of the energy. It is also not made out from the checking report that the complainant was present at the time of the checking. No checking was ever conducted in the presence of the complainant. It is also no where mentioned in the demand notice that any wire was recovered. The checking report  also does not bear the signature of the complainant as also of any independent person of the village.

4.       The complainant contacted the ops and requested for the withdrawal of the demand but to no effect. 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 a direction to the ops to withdraw the demand made vide letter no.1327 dated 1.9.2010; to pay the complainant the compensation in a sum of Rs.5000/- and also to award him the costs of the complaint in a sum of Rs.5000/-.

5.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed the written version. It is denied if the complainant is a consumer of the ops. It is however, admitted that the complainant was sent the demand notice no.1327 dated 1.9.2010 on account of the theft of the energy on the basis of the checking dated 30.8.2010.It is denied if the checking was not conducted in the absence of the complainant. In fact the checking was made on 30.8.2010 by AAE Ram Singh and JE Mohinder Kumar as per entry no.1129 of the checking register made on page no.82 and the complainant was found running the motor with 4 core 30 meter electric wire connected directly with 100KVA LT line. The wire was got into possession. The complainant refused to sign the checking report.

6.       On the basis of the checking demand notice no.1327 dated 1.9.2010 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act for Rs.81960/- i.e. Rs.66960/- on account of theft of the energy and Rs.15000/- as compounding fee was sent to the complainant. The ops had also written letter no.1328 dated 1.9.2010  for the registration of the FIR against the complainant. The demand was raised as per Punjab State Regulatory Commission(Electricity) Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 and C3 and the  learned counsel for the complainant closed the evidence.

8.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of  Parvesh Kumar ,SDO of op no.2, Ex.R5 the sworn affidavit of Ram Singh,AEE and R6 the sworn affidavit of Mohinder Kumar,JE both of op no.2 alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R4 and closed their evidence.

9.       The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the ops none having appeared on behalf of the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.

10.     Ex.R2 is the copy of the checking report dated 30.8.2010 as got proved by the ops with the assistance of the sworn affidavit,Ex.R5 of AAE Ram Singh and R6 the sworn affidavit of JE Mohinder Kumar both of op no.2 who had conducted the checking in respect of the electricity connection of the complainant on 30.8.2010. As per the checking report, the complainant was found running electric motor with the help of four core 30 meter electric wire directly from 100KVA LT line. The checking is reported to have been made in the presence of the complainant who refused to sign the checking report.

11.     On the basis of the checking report, the demand notice,Ex.R3 was sent to the complainant vide no.1327 dated 1.9.2010.

12.     It was submitted by Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal, the learned counsel for the ops that by virtue of the provisional order of assessment, Ex.R3, the complainant was advised that in case he was not agtreeable to the order of assessment, he could prefer the objections within 15 days before SE(Distribution) of the PSPCL, a Designated Authority, under the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007.The complainant failed to prefer any objections. 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 with the observation, “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.”

13.     We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the ops. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the checking report,Ex.R2, got proved by responsible officer of the rank of AAE namely Parvesh Kumar,SDO and another officer of the rank of JE namely Mohinder Kumar both of op no.2 in the matter of the complainant having been found committing theft of the energy with the help of a 30 meter four core electric wire directly from 100KVA LT line. In the light of the citation Uttari Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. Versus Karam Chand(supra) the complainant having refused to acknowledge the checking report having made a refusal, now he can not be heard to say that the checking was not conducted in his presence. The complainant could raise any objections regarding the checking having not been conducted in his presence by way of preferring the objections before the Designated Authority in pursuance of the order of the provisional assessment. Now in the light of the aforesaid citation of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:19.9.2011

                                                 Neelam Gupta        D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President