BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 126 of 2008<br /> Instituted On:19.9.2008<br /> Date of Service:15.10.2008<br /> Decided On: 04.12.2008<br /> <br /> Satnam Singh (aged 30 years) son of Sh.Dalip Singh son of Kartar Singh, resident of village: Sanghera, Distt.Moga.<br /> <br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Zira.<br /> 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Fatehgarh Panjtoor, Distt.Moga.<br /> <br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.B.S.Gill, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Satnam Singh 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 Secretary and others-opposite parties (herein-after referred to as ‘Board’) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.39019/- raised vide memo dated 13.08.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Satnam Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having NRS connection bearing account no.AK/28/0758P with sanctioned load of 1.71 KW installed at his premises. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden, the OPs-Board sent him memo no.1319-20 dated 13.8.2008 raising a demand of Rs.39019/- on account of ‘theft of energy’. That no checking was ever conducted of his premises by the OPs-Board. Moreover, there was no mention about the date, time and person who conducted the alleged checking of his premises. That the complainant never committed any theft of energy. That the said demand raised by the OPs-Board is false, frivolous and baseless. 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.20000/- 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.S.K.Dhir, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. It was averred that in fact on 31.07.2008 Sh.Narinder Singh, J.E. PSEB Fatehgarh Panjtoor checked the premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by way of fixing direct wire by bye-passing the meter. The checking was made in the presence of the complainant, but he refused to sign the checking report. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, notice no. 1319/20 dated 13.08.2008 under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.39019/- taking the demand factor of 100% on account of direct theft of energy, to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. On merits, the OPs-Board took up the same and similar plea as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. 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 receipt Ex.A3, copy of bill Ex.A4 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.J.S.Multani, Sr.XEN Ex.R1, affidavit of Narinder Singh, JE Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.B.S.Gill ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.K.Dhir ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.B.S.Gill ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.39019/- raised vide memo dated 13.08.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in ‘theft of energy’. <br /> 8. On the other hand, Sh.S.K.Dhir ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has argued that on 31.07.2008 Sh.Narinder Singh, J.E. PSEB Fatehgarh Panjtoor checked the premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by way of fixing direct wire by bye-passing the meter. The checking was made in the presence of the complainant, but he refused to sign the checking report. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has some force. Admittedly, on 31.07.2008 Sh.Narinder Singh, J.E. PSEB Fatehgarh Panjtoor checked the premises of the complainant and found him committing ‘theft of energy’ in the aforesaid manners. To further strengthen the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the OPs-Board has produced affidavit of Sh.J.S.Multani, Sr.XEN Ex.R1, affidavit of Narinder Singh, JE Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4.<br /> 9. Further, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not committing ‘theft of electricity’ except his own affidavit Ex.A1. There is no corroboration to his affidavit that he was not stealing the electricity 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. Moreover, 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 31.07.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means.<br /> 11. Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs.39019/- on account of ‘theft of energy’ as per the Electricity Act, 2003. The answer to this question is in negative because the OPs-Board has not strictly complied with the provisions of new Act. Admittedly, the electric connection installed at the premises of the complainant is NRS one. Under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 in case of ‘theft of energy’, the ‘NRS’ consumer at the most can be charged taking the demand factor of 40%. Notice Ex.R4 issued by the OPs-Board as well as written reply and affidavit Ex.R1 show that they have charged the impugned amount taking the demand factor as 100% whereas the checking under section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 (New Act). <br /> 12. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned demand of Rs.39019/- raised vide memo dated 13.08.2008 from the complainant is liable to be set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board can charge the complainant for ‘theft of energy’ by taking the demand factor as 40% under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003.<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 is partly accepted and the demand of Rs.39019/- raised by the OPs-Board vide memo dated 13.08.2008 from the complainant is set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board is entitled to issue fresh notice/ demand on account of ‘theft of energy’ taking the demand factor as 40%. The OPs-Board is also directed to refund/adjust the amount (as per the desire of the complainant) deposited by the complainant, if any, as per interim order of this Forum dated 25.09.2008 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realisation. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. <br /> <br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:04.12.2008.<br /> hrg*<br />