BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> Complaint No: 124 of 2008<br /> Instituted On:19.09.2008<br /> Date of Service: 15.10.2008<br /> Decided On: 04.12.2008<br /> <br /> Chain Singh alias Sukhchain Singh (aged 40 years) son of Sh.Banta Singh, resident of village: Sanghera, Distt.Moga.<br /> Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Zira.<br /> 3. SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Fatehgarh Panjtoor, Distt.Moga.<br /> Opposite Parties.<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.B.S.Gill, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Chain 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.24354/- raised vide notice no.1214-15 dated 13.08.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment. <br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Chain Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having AP (agricultural purpose) connection bearing account no.AK28/1089. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden, the complainant received a notice no.1214-15 dated 13.8.2008 in which they raised a demand of Rs.24354/- on account of ‘theft of energy’. This allegation of the OPs-Board is totally wrong and denied. The complainant never indulged in ‘theft of energy’. That no checking was ever conducted of the said connection by the OPs-Board. Moreover, there is no mention of account number, time and detail of alleged amount as mentioned in the alleged memo. The alleged memo has been prepared by the OPs-Board by sitting in office. That the said amount raised by the OPs-Board is altogether 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 28.07.2008 Sh.Narinder Singh J.E, PSEB, Fatehgarh Panjtoor District Moga checked the agriculture tubewell connection of the complainant and found him running 3 BHP electric motor illegally. The checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant, but he refused to sign the same. That the checking authority declared it as a case of unauthorized use of electricity. Thereafter, notice no. 1214-15 dated 13.08.2008 was served upon the complainant to deposit Rs.24354/- on account of unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. 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 bill Ex.A3 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 Sh.Narinder Singh J.E 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.24354/- raised by the OPs-Board vide notice no.1214-15 dated 13.08.2008 was wrong and illegal because the OPs-Board has failed to prove any ‘theft of energy’ against the complainant. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has full force. According to the OPs-Board, on 28.07.2008 Sh.Narinder Singh J.E, PSEB, Fatehgarh Panjtoor District Moga checked the tubewell connection of the complainant and found him running 3 BHP motor illegally. The checking report Ex.R3 produced on file by the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board shows that it does not bear the name of consumer, any account number or detail of the impugned amount. Moreover, the name of alleged checking officer on the checking report is also not clearly legible. Similarly, in the notice Ex.R4 issued by the OPs-Board, there is no mention of name of checking officer and other detailed particulars of checking. Thus, in the absence of aforesaid cogent and convincing evidence, it can not be held that the complainant was allegedly committing ‘theft of energy’ on 28.7.2008. Hence, the affidavit of Sh.J.S.Multani, Sr.XEN Ex.R1 and Sh.Narinder Singh, JE Ex.R2 have failed to prove the allegation of ‘theft of energy’ being committed by the complainant. We, therefore, hold that the OPs-Board has wrongly and illegally claimed the impugned amount from the complainant on account of ‘theft of energy’. Thus, the OPs-Board has committed deficiency in service in claiming the impugned amount.<br /> 8. To prove the aforesaid contention, the complainant produced his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of notice Ex.A2, copy of bill Ex.A3. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit of Sh.J.S.Multani, Sr.XEN Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh.Narinder Singh J.E Ex.R2 and other documents Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 and we discard the same.<br /> 9. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has merit and the same is accepted and the demand of Rs.24354/- raised vide notice no.1214-15 dated 13.08.2008 from the complainant is set aside and quashed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The OPs-Board shall refund/adjust the amount (as per the desire of the complainant), if any, deposited by the complainant, as per interim order of this Forum dated 25.9.2008 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realisation. Copies of the order 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:04.12.2008.<br /> hrg*<br /> <br />