DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 222 of 01-08-2007<br /> Decided on :17-10-2007<br /> <br /> Raghveer Singh S/o Gurditta Singh, R/o Village Dialpura Mirza, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2.A.E.E./S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban, Sub Division Bhagta Bhai Ka. Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. .... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. R.D. Goyal, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw demand of Rs. 1,72,739/-; restore his electricity connection with immediate effect; pay Rs. 20,000/- to him as damages on account of mental tension and agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Briefly put the version of the complainant is that he is having SP electricity connection bearing account No. BP-33/267 at village Dialpura Mirza, for the last many years with which he is running Atta Chakki for earning his livelihood. This is the only source of his income and the income of his family. Memo No. 3439 dated 13.7.07 was received by him on 23.7.07 whereby demand of Rs. 1,72,739/- has been raised against him leveling allegation that checking was conducted by Assistant Executive Engineer (Enforcement-I), Bathinda, on 13.6.07 and it was found that there was no meter and one motor was found running with submersible pump by putting direct wire and that motor was of the capacity of 17.5 BHP. There was another motor fitting of which was upto the starter and its connection was not joined and it was being used on a Generator and that this another motor was of 7.5 BHP. On enquiry meter was found completely burnt on 9.6.07. There were no marks about the installation of the meter at the site and that it seemed that meter was intentionally burnt and nothing else except the meter was appearing burnt. He assails this memo as illegal, null and void and against rules on the grounds that no checking was ever made about the working of the meter; his signatures were not obtained at the time of alleged checking; he had lodged complaint regarding the burning of the meter and it was registered; checking of the meter, if any, is illegal and one sided; no independent witness was joined at the time of alleged checking; no basis of demand has been given; meter was not shown to him either at the time of installation or at the time of removal; even the condition of the seals on the meter was not shown; no objection was ever raised by the officials of the Board. Despite his complaint regarding the burning of the meter, the same was not removed; copy of the alleged checking report dated 13.6.07 was not supplied to him at the time of alleged checking and electricity connection was disconnected without affording any opportunity of being heard. He was not indulging in theft of electricity. Request was made by him to the opposite parties to withdraw the memo, but to no effect. Rather they extended threat that in case the amount is not deposited, the connection would not be restored. Due to the adamant attitude of the opposite parties, he has undergone mental tension and agony. Opposite parties are deficient in rendering services and are indulging in unfair trade practices.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and complainant has not come with clean hands; On merits, they admit that complainant is a holder of electricity connection bearing A/c No. BP-33/267. They deny that he was making payment of the amount of electricity bills regularly. Correct meter was installed by them. On 13.6.07, connection was checked by Assistant Executive Engineer Enforcement, Bathinda in the presence of A.E.E. D/S Bhagta Bhai Ka and Kalu driver. At the time of checking, it was found that there was no meter and one motor was found running with submersible pump by putting direct wire and that motor was of the capacity of 17.5 BHP. There was another motor fitting of which was upto the starter and its connection was not joined and it was being used on a Generator and that this another motor was of 7.5 BHP. On enquiry meter was found completely burnt on 9.6.07. There were no marks about the installation of the meter at the site and that it seemed that meter was was intentionally burnt and nothing else except the meter was appearing burnt. Connection was being used from city feeder. Kalu driver of the complainant intentionally refused to sign the checking report. On the basis of the report, memo No. 3439 dated 13.7.07 raising demand of Rs. 1,72,739/- was issued which was charged on the basis of circular No. 34/2006. They deny that demand is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the complaint. They are entitled to recover this amount and connection would be restored after getting the amount deposited. Remaining averments in the complaint are not admitted.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-5) ), photocopy of memo No. 3439 dated 13.7.07 (Ex. C-2), affidavit of Sukhmander Singh (Ex. C-3), affidavit of Harnek Singh (Ex. C-4), photocopy of complaint register one page (Ex. C-6), photocopies of bills (Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-13) and photocopies of payment receipts (Ex. C-14 to Ex. C-17).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Jasbir Singh, S.D.O. (Ex. R-1), affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Singh, A.E.E. (Ex. R-2), photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-3) and photocopy of letter dated 13.7.07 (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. Argument pressed into service by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant is that opposite parties have failed to prove the theft of electricity by the complainant and as such, demand raised vide impugned memo copy of which is Ex. C-2 is certainly illegal, null and void. For this, he drew our attention to the documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-6.<br /> 8. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that connection of the complainant was checked on 13.6.07 by Sh. Ranjit Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer, whose affidavit is Ex. R-2, in the presence of Kalu driver of the complainant. Case of theft was detected against the complainant as has been pleaded in the reply of the complaint. To support his submission, he drew our attention to the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Jasbir Singh, S.D.O. and copy of the checking report Ex. R-3. He further argued that Kalu driver of the complainant had refused to sign the checking report and on the basis of checking, impugned memo raising demand of Rs. 1,72,739/- was rightly issued.<br /> 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.<br /> 10. Opposite parties allege that complainant was indulging in the theft of electricity. Such like allegation of theft is required to be proved with solid evidence. There should be concrete, cogent and convincing evidence for establishing such allegation. Admittedly complainant was not present at the time of alleged checking. Plea of the opposite parties is that checking was done in the presence of one Kalu who was driver of the complainant and that he had refused to sign the checking report. It was for the opposite parties to prove that Kalu was the representative of the consumer/complainant. For this, there is bald affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Singh which stands amply rebutted with the affidavits of the complainant and S/Sh. Sukhmander Singh and Harnek Singh which are Ex. C-5, Ex. C-3 and Ex. C-4 respectively. Complainant has stated in so many words that Kalu driver is neither known to him nor is he related to him and that there is no person in the name of Kalu driver in his village. He further stated that he is not having any car, truck or any other heavy vehicle for which driver is required and as such, question of employing driver, does not arise. His this stance is supported through affidavits Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4. Only thing mentioned on the checking report, copy of which is Ex. R-3 is that Sh. Kalu driver refused to sign. Parentage and other particulars of Kalu driver have not been mentioned in the checking report. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that alleged checking was done in the presence of the representative of the complainant. Hence, very checking of the connection become a doubtful affair. Opposite parties filed reply of the complaint. They did not think it fit to disclose in it that checking was done by Sh. Ranjit Singh, A.E.E. It is only during the proceeding of this complaint that affidavit Ex. R-2 of Sh. Ranjit Singh has been tendered. According to Ex. R-3, meter was completely burnt on 9.6.07. There was no sign of installation of meter at the spot. Even in the affidavit Ex. R-2 Sh. Ranjit Singh has stated that it was found that there was no meter. Likewise is the plea of the opposite parties in para No. 3 in the reply of the complaint. In para No. 3 sub para VIII, version is that the burnt meter was removed after making an enquiry. Hence, story of the checking becomes suspicious. If meter was removed after enquiry then why it was not packed and sealed at the spot. Opposite parties are not sure about the fact that meter was intentionally burnt. According to the checking report, copy of which is Ex. R-3. meter seemed to be intentionally burnt on 9.6.07. This stance of the opposite parties is falsified from the record of the opposite parties i.e. copy Ex. C-6 of their complaint register according to which matter was reported on 7.6.07 that meter was burnt and in its place new mater be installed. Opposite parties have not explained as to what could be necessity for the complainant to intentionally burn the meter. If complainant was committing theft of energy, the connected wire etc., which were being used for taking electricity directly could be packed and sealed. They could be shown to this Forum in support of the version of the opposite parties. On the basis of checking report alone, demand could not be raised particularly when at the time of alleged checking complainant or his representative was not present and Kalu has not been proved to be his representative. For this, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, in the case of Charan Singh Vs. P.S.E.B. (Chairman) and Another 2006(1) JRC 206. In case complainant was indulging in theft of energy, the site could be got videographed. Photographs could be taken. Evidence to this effect is lacking.<br /> 11. There is non-compliance of Commercial Circular No. 34/2006 and 53/2006 in this case as well. According to Commercial Circular No. 53/2006, Inspection Report should be signed by the authorised officer and all members of the Inspection Team and consumer/person or his/her representative. It is mandatory that copy of the Inspection Report should be handed over to the consumer or his representative. In case of refusal by the consumer/person or his/her representative, a copy of the Inspection Report should be pasted at a Copy of the Inspection Report is to be sent by the authorised checking officer to the concerned Assessing Officer for making assessment of charges as per provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Even if it is taken for arguments sake, although we do not subscribe to it that Kalu driver was the representative of the complainant, even then, opposite parties were required to paste copy of the Inspection Report at the premises. Simultaneously copy of the Inspection Report was to be sent to the complainant under registered post, which has not been done. This further casts cloud on the checking itself. Had the checking been there, checking officer was to make compliance of Commercial Circular No. 53/2006, which is mandatory. Copy of the impugned memo/letter is Ex. R-4 according to which a sum of Rs. 1,72,739/- has been found recoverable. Complainant has been directed that in case he has objection, he could inform the Sr. Executive Engineer personally or in writing within 7 days. As per Commercial Circular No. 34/2006 Provisional Assessment Order as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act is to be served upon the consumer by the Assessing Officer. After affording reasonable opportunity of hearing against the objections filed by him, the Assessing Officer is to pass an order of the charges payable by him giving him seven days for representing against Provisional Assessment Order. In our view, there is no strict compliance of this Commercial Circular No. 34/2006 as assessment is not provisional.<br /> 12. From an overall assessment of the facts, circumstances and the evidence discussed above, we are of the view that opposite parties have failed to prove the allegation of theft of energy by way of leading concrete and credible evidence. Moreover, there is non- compliance of the Commercial Circulars of the Board as discussed above. In these circumstances, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is writ large. Demand raised by the opposite parties through letter dated 13.7.07, copies of which are Ex. C-2 and Ex. R-4 is liable to be set aside.<br /> 13. Now, question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw letter dated 13.7.07 vide which the impugned demand of Rs. 1,72,729/- has been raised and to restore his electricity connection, if not already restored within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused mental tension and agony to the complainant for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 2,000/-. For this, we are fortified from the observations of Hon'ble State Commission of Madhya Pradesh in the case of J. Radhakrishnan Vs. A Basheera & Another 2001(2) CLT 225 wherein it has been held that award of compensation always involves some sort of speculation and it is very difficult to quantify the amount of compensation on a rationale basis.<br /> 14. In the premises written above, complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> i)Withdraw impugned demand raised through letter dated 13.7.07, copies of which are Ex. C-2 and Ex. R-4.<br /> ii)Restore electricity connection No. BP-33/267 of the complainant, if already not restored, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> iii)Pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of its receipt failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) would carry interest @9% P.A. till payment.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 17-10--2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member