BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 110 of 2008<br /> Instituted On:05.09.2008<br /> Date of Service: 26.09.2008<br /> Decided On: 26.11.2008<br /> <br /> Gurbax Singh (aged 50 years) son of Sh.Phuman Singh, resident of Nihal Singh Wala, 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, Bagha Purana, Distt. Moga.<br /> 3. SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patto Hira Singh, Distt.Moga.<br /> <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.P.S.Sidhu, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.Ajay Gulati, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Gurbax 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.6461/- raised vide notice no.1727 dated 14.08.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment. <br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Gurbax Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having WSD electric connection bearing account no.NC/64/0204F installed at his premises with sanctioned load of 0.98 KW. 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.1727 dated 14.8.2008 in which they raised a demand of Rs.6461/- 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 the complainant requested the OPs-Board 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.Ajay Gulati, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. On merits, it was averred that in fact on 11.8.2008 the meter of the complainant was checked by senior officials of the OPs-Board and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by direct kundi connection. 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 ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, notice no. 1727 dated 14.8.2008 was served upon the complainant to deposit Rs.6461/- on account of ‘theft of energy’ 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, notice Ex.A2, bills Ex.A3 to Ex.A5 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit of Sh.D.S.Toor, Sr.XEN and Sh.Nek Singh SDO Ex.R1, copy of rules Ex.R2, copy of detail Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4, copy of checking report Ex.R5 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.P.S.Sidhu ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.Ajay Gulati ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.P.S.Sidhu ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.6461/- raised by the OPs-Board vide notice no.1727 dated 14.8.2008 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 11.8.2008 the meter of the complainant was checked by some senior officials of the OPs-Board and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by direct kundi connection. But it is neither mentioned in the written reply nor in the joint affidavit of Sh.D.S.Toor, Sr.XEN and Sh.Nek Singh SDO Ex.R1 that as to who had checked the connection of the complainant. The OPs-Board has also failed to disclose the name of said official who effected the said checking and found the complainant allegedly committing the ‘theft of energy’. Moreover, no affidavit of the checking officer in support of their contention has been filed. Thus, in the absence of affidavit of checking officer, it can not be held that the complainant was committing ‘theft of energy’ allegedly checking conducted on 11.8.2008. The joint affidavit of Sh.D.S.Toor, Sr.XEN and Sh.Nek Singh SDO Ex.R1 is of formal character because they were not the members of raiding party and their affidavit 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 alleged ‘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, notice Ex.A2, bills Ex.A3 to Ex.A5. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the joint affidavit of Sh.D.S.Toor, Sr.XEN and Sh.Nek Singh SDO Ex.R1 and other documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 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. The demand of Rs.6461/- raised by the OPs-Board vide notice no.1727 dated 14.8.2008 from the complainant is set aside and quashed. Keeping in view 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 /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:26.11.2008.<br /> hrg*<br />