BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 60 of 2008 Instituted On: 02.06.2008 Date of Service: 26.06.2008 Decided On: 11.09.2008 Harwinder Singh (aged 30 years) son of late Sh.Malkiat Singh son of Dhanna Singh, resident of village: Lopon, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Moga. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Badhni Kalan. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member. Present: Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.counsel for complainant. Sh.Satvir Singh, Adv. counsel for OPs. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Harwinder 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 Executive Engineer and another-opposite parties (herein-after referred to as Board) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.14068/- raised vide bill dated 09.05.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Harwinder Singh complainant is a consumer of the OPs-Board having electric connection bearing account no.LF23/ 0291N installed at his residential premises having sanctioned load of 0.80 KW in the name of his father Malkiat Singh who has been expired. Since then the complainant has been using the said connection & paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden, he received a bill dated 9.5.2008 for Rs.14150/- from the OPs-Board in which an amount of Rs.14068/- has been included as sundry charges. That the complainant did not use the energy to that extent. That the demand raised by the OPs-Board is altogether, wrong, unjust, void at law and against the rules & regulations of the PSEB. That the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board, time & 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. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.Satvir Singh 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 from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct and that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act as the electric connection in question has been installed in the name of Malkiat Singh son of Dhanna Singh and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs-Board. In fact, on 27.2.2008 Sh.Gurcharan Singh JE-II alongwith Shamsher Singh and Angrej Singh officials of the OPs-Board checked the electric connection in question in the presence of representative of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by using direct kundi in the joint of main service line and the meter was stopped. The checking was conducted in the presence of representative of the complainant. Thus, they declared it a case of theft of energy. Thereafter, notice no.5079 dated 28.02.2008 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.14068/- on account of theft of energy, but the complainant did not pay the same. Thereafter, the impugned amount was added in the bill dated 09.05.2008 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. 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of bills Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 and closed his evidence. 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.Executive Engineer and Sh.Bakhshish Singh AAE, copy of checking report Ex.R2, copy of notice Ex.R3 and closed their evidence. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Sanjeev Sharma ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.Satvir Singh ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 7. Sh.Sanjeev Sharma ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.14068/- raised vide bill dated 09.05.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in theft of energy. 8. Admittedly, the electric connection in question is in the name of Malkiat Singh son of Dhanna Singh. It was argued by Sh.Sanjeev Sharma ld.counsel for the complainant that Malkiat Singh son of Dhanna Singh father of the complainant has since been expired and after his death, the complainant has been using the connection in question as a beneficiary. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has full force. This fact has not been controverted by the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we therefore, hold that Harwinder Singh complainant being beneficiary is a consumer under the Act. Our this view stands fortified by our own Honble State Commission, Pb. Chandigarh in Appeal No.218 of 2004 (Ashwani Kumar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors.) decided on 16.8.2005. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:- Suffice it to say that in case of Ashwani Kumar he is the owner in possession of the premises though the connection is in the name of Kartar Devi and is actually the consumer of the electricity and therefore, a consumer 9. On the other hand, Sh.Satvir Singh ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that in fact on 27.2.2008 Sh.Gurcharan Singh JE-II alongwith Shamsher Singh and Angrej Singh officials of the OPs-Board checked the electric connection in question in the presence of representative of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by using direct kundi in the joint of main service line by stopping the meter. The checking was conducted in presence of the representative of the complainant. Thus, the checking party declared it a case of theft of energy. Thereafter, notice no.5079 dated 28.02.2008 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.14068/- on account of theft of energy, but the complainant did not pay the same. So, the impugned amount was added in the consumption bill dated 09.05.2008 of the complainant to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has some force. Admittedly, on 27.02.2008 the premises of the complainant was checked by Sh.Gurcharan Singh, JE Badhni Kalan and other official of the OPs-Board who found him committing theft of energy in the aforesaid manners. To further strengthen the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the OPs-Board have produced joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.Executive Engineer and Sh.Bakhshish Singh AAE, copy of checking report Ex.R2, copy of notice Ex.R3. 10. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not stealing the 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. 11. 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 27.02.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means. 12. Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs.14068/- 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 complied with the provisions of new Act . Notice Ex.R3 issued by the OPs-Board show that they have issued the same under the old provision of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and not under the new provision of section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 (New Act) which has been made effective w.e.f. 01.01.2008. The provisions of the new Act are more stringent than the old Act. Under the new Act, the OPs-Board was required to give time to the consumer for filing objections against the provisional assessment and of personal hearing whereas the notice Ex.R3 did not contain the provisions inviting objections and of personal hearing as provided under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. Thus, the complainant can be charged as per old provisions of commercial circular no.53/2006 and not under the provision of new Act. Had the OPs-Board given the notice of assessment to the complainant under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, then the position would have been different. So the case of the complainant can not be dealt with under the new Act, which was made effective on 1.1.2008. 13. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned demand of Rs.14068/- raised vide bill dated 09.05.2008 is liable to be set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board can charge the complainant for theft of energy as per the old provisions of Commercial Circular no.53/2006. 14. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. The demand of Rs.14068/- raised by the OPs-Board vide bill dated 09.05.2008 is set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board is entitled to issue fresh notice/ demand on account of theft of energy as per the old provisions of commercial circular no. 53/2006. 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. (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla) Member Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:11.09.2008. hrg*
