BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.18 of 2008.<br /> Instituted On: 03.03.2008.<br /> Date of Service: 20.03.2008.<br /> Decided On: 17.07.2008.<br /> <br /> Parshotam Dhir (aged 31 years) son of Sadhu Ram, resident of Pipan Wali Gali, Moga, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.<br /> <br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through Executive Engineer, South, Sub Division, Moga.<br /> <br /> 2. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Mall Road, Patiala. <br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Vaneet Mittal, Adv. counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.V.K.Dhir, Adv. counsel for the OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Parshotam Dhir complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its Executive Engineer, Moga and another-opposite parties (herein-after referred to as ‘Board’) directing them to withdraw the illegal and unlawful demand of Rs.11615/- raised vide memo no.37 dated 10.01.2008 and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Parshotam Dass complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.KR94/0056L installed at his residential premises having sanctioned load of 0.460 KW and other NRS connection bearing account no.KR94/0057N installed at his shop. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden, he received a memo dated 10.01.2008 in which the OPs-Board demanded Rs.11615/- on account of theft of energy, excess load and for using the NRS supply from DS connection from him. That no inspection of his premises was ever done in the presence of complainant or his representative by the Ops-Board. That no copy of the alleged spot inspection has been delivered to him till date. Even the complainant has filed the objections with the assessing authority and also demanded the copy of the inspection report but the assessing authority did not pay any heed to the same, rather summarily rejected the same. That the complainant never used the excess load or committed any theft of energy. That the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board time and again and requested to withdraw the impugned amount, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.10000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.V.K.Dhir, Advocate and filed written statement contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant has concealed the true facts from the knowledge of this Forum. On merits, it was averred that in fact on 29.12.2007, the officials of the OPs-Board jointly checked the DS connection no.KR94/0056 installed at the residential premises of the complainant and found the complainant stealing the electricity red handed by stopping the electric meter with an electric instrument. They also found the complainant using the excess and unauthorized load of 1.133 KW than the sanctioned load of 0.460 KW. Moreover, the complainant was found using the domestic supply for shop (NRS purposes) in his residential premises. That the checking was conducted in presence of representative of the complainant who duly signed the checking report. That the copy of the same was given to representative of the complainant at the spot. Thereafter, provisional order/ memo no. 37 dated 10.01.2008 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.11615/- on account of theft of energy as well as excess load and using NRS connection for domestic supply. Thereafter, the complainant submitted his objections to this notice but the assessing authority did not find any illegality in this order and made the provisional order of assessment as final under section 136 © of Indian Electricity Act. That the complainant did not prefer any appeal under section 127 (i) of Indian Electricity Act 2003 against the final order of assessment before the appellate authority. Thus, the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover the same. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of notice Ex.A2, copy of objections Ex.A3, copy of reply to objections Ex.A4, bills Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar, Sr.XEN, affidavit Ex.R2 of Kuldip Singh AEE, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Vaneet Mittal ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.V.K.Dhir ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.Vaneet Mittal ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.11615/- raised vide memo no.37 dated 10.01.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in theft of energy. He further argued that there was no direct evidence of theft of energy against the complainant. <br /> 8. Sh.V.K.Dhir ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that on 29.12.2007, the officials of the OPs-Board jointly checked the DS connection no.KR94/0056 installed at the residential premises of the complainant and found him using the theft of electricity red handed by stopping the electric meter with an electric instrument. They also found the complainant using the excess and unauthorized load of 1.133 KW than the sanctioned load 0.460 KW. It was further alleged that the complainant was also found using the domestic supply for shop (NRS purposes) in his residential premises. The checking was made in presence of representative of the complainant who duly signed the checking report. That the copy of the same was given to representative of the complainant at the spot. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has full force. Admittedly, on 29.12.2007 the premises of the complainant was checked by Kuldip Singh AEE and other officials of the Ops-Board who found him committing theft of energy in the aforesaid manners and also using the excess load of 0.763 KW. Both the charges of theft and using excess load have been proved from the checking report Ex.R3 which was duly signed by Nisha the representative of the complainant at the spot. To further strengthen the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the OPs-Board have produced affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar, Sr.XEN, PSEB, affidavit Ex.R2 of Kuldip Singh AEE, copy of checking report Ex.R3, and copy of notice Ex.R4.<br /> 9. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not stealing the electricity and using the excess load except his own affidavit Ex.A1. There is no corroboration to his affidavit that he was not stealing the electricity and using the excess load by illegal means. Moreover, he has reason to give false affidavit in order to save himself from the consequences of being caught red handed while stealing the electricity by illegal means. Thus, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and we discard the same.<br /> 10. On the other hand, the checking party had acted in accordance with rules and regulations issued by PSEB from time to time and in discharge of their official duties. They were supposed to do all their acts bonafidely and in good faith and without any malice or motive. The complainant has not alleged any ill-will or animus against them. They have no reason to make a wrong report against him. In view of these circumstances, we hold that on 29.12.2007 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means and using the excess load. Thus, the OPs-Board was justified in charging Rs.11615/- from the complainant on account of theft of energy and excess load by illegal means.<br /> 11. Moreover, in case of fraudulent abstraction of energy this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint made by the complainant. On this point rulings cited IV (2003) Consumer Protection Judgements-376 ‘South West Distribution Co.Ltd (BSES) Versus Inder Pal Thapar of Delhi State Commission, II (2004) Consumer Protection Judgements- 20 Puran Chand versus B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Limited & Anr. of Hon’ble Delhi State Commission and 2006(3) The Punjab Law Reporter page 14 titled as Delhi Vidyut Board Vs.Devindra Singh and another of Delhi High Court are quite applicable to the facts of the present case. It has been held that in such circumstances the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act and the dispute between the parties can not be said to be a ‘consumer dispute’. Similar view was held by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in III (2003) Consumer Protection Judgements-66 Delhi Vidyut Board Versus D.N.Shukla.<br /> 12. In view of aforesaid circumstances, we hold that the complainant was found stealing the electricity and using the excess load than the sanctioned one by aforesaid illegal means. Thus, the impugned demand of Rs.11615/- made from the complainant on account of theft of energy and excess load by the OPs-Board was quite legal and valid and as per rules and instructions of the PSEB. The complainant has failed to prove if there was any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs-Board. <br /> 13. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order shall be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:17.07.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />