DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C No. 50 of 13.2.2008<br /> Decided on : 3.4.2008 <br /> <br /> Angrej Chand S/o Sh. Tek Chand, R/o Main Bazar, Talwandi Sabo, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. <br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.S.D.O./A.E.E., Punjab State Elecy. Board, Sub Division Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Lalit Garg, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. J.P.S Brar, 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 the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to restore his electricity connection bearing A/c No. TB 91/118; pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and Rs. 3,300/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that he is holder of electricity connection referred to above. Notice/memo No. 48 dated 10.1.2008 was received by him vide which a sum of Rs. 18,146/- has been demanded from him alleging that meter installed in his premises was checked on 5.1.2008 and it was found that both the M.E seals were tampered and that terminal block was burnt and as such, it is a case of theft of energy. Complainant assails this memo as illegal, null and void and arbitrary on the grounds that he was not indulging in theft of electricity; his connection was not checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 5.1.2008 much less in his presence or in the presence of his representative; alleged report does not bear his signatures or the signatures of his representative; meter was being checked by the Meter Reader from time to time but he never reported any fault in the meter and its status was okay; no opportunity of being heard was afforded to him before raising the impugned demand and as such, there is violation of principles of natural justice; meter has not been got checked from the M.E Lab and details of the amount have not been given. He requested the opposite parties to withdraw the demand, but to no effect. <br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their reply taking legal objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; he has not come with clean hands and complaint has been filed with malafide intention. On merits, they admit that notice No. 48 dated 10.1.2008 was issued raising the demand. It was sent on the basis of checking dated 5.1.2008. They deny that the notice is illegal, null and void and arbitrary on the grounds mentioned in the complaint. In letter No. 147 dated 14.2.2008, details of the amount of Rs. 18,146/- have been given. Complainant has deposited the amount vide receipt No. 464/93645 dated 22.2.2008. Re-connection order has been issued on 25.2.2008.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Angrej Chand complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of letter dated 4.2.2008 (Ex.C.2) and photocopy of checking report dated 5.1.2008 (Ex.C.3).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3) of S/Sh. Raghureet Singh Brar, SDO, Dhanna Singh, Lineman and Gurlabh Singh, J.E respectively, photocopy of letter dated 4.2.2008 (Ex.R.4) and photocopy of checking report dated 5.1.2008 (Ex.R.5).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 7. Allegation of the opposite parties is that electricity connection of the complainant was checked on 5.1.2008. Both the M.E seals of the meter were found tampered and meter block was found burnt. In these circumstances, it was a case of theft of energy. Copy of the checking report is Ex.R.5. On its basis, memo No. 48 was issued raising demand of Rs. 18,146/-. Thereafter, letter No. 147 dated 4.2.2008, copies of which are Ex.C.2 & Ex.R.4, was issued giving the details of the amount of Rs. 18,146/-.<br /> 8. Since, opposite parties are alleging theft of electricity on the part of the complainant, the burden of proof is upon them to prove it. Theft of electricity is to be proved like a criminal charge. There should be cogent and convincing evidence for establishing it. Theft cannot be presumed on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Opposite parties are relying upon the affidavits Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 and the checking report Ex.R.5. So far as Ex.R.1 is concerned, it is of Sh. Raghureet Singh Brar, SDO. He was not with the checking party. Opposite parties have not made it clear in the reply of the complaint as to who were the members of the checking party and which were their names. Now they have come with the affidavits of S/Sh. Gurlabh Singh, J.E and Dhanna Singh, Lineman which are Ex.R.3 & Ex.R.2 respectively. Sh. Gurlabh Singh states that checking of the connection of the complainant was done by him in his presence and in the presence of Sh. Dhanna Singh, Lineman and that both the M.E seals were tampered and meter block was burnt. Likewise is the affidavit of Sh. Dhanna Singh. According to them, complainant had refused to sign the checking report. Allegation of theft of energy does not stand established from the affidavits of S/Sh. Gurlabh Singh and Dhanna Singh. They have not disclosed the nature of tampering of the M.E seals. There is nothing in their affidavits that the tampering of the M.E seals was such on the basis of which theft of electricity could be committed. Even if it is taken for arguments sake that the block of the meter was burnt, even then they have not made it clear that meter block was burnt by the complainant and that too with ulterior motive. Meter can burn due to some natural causes beyond the reach of consumer. It is not the case of the opposite parties that meter was not recording the consumption or it was lying stopped. Opposite parties did not deem it fit to get the meter checked from the M.E Lab to establish their version that it is a case of theft of electricity. Moreover, there is non-compliance of Commercial Circular No. 53/2006. In case, complainant was present at the time of alleged inspection by Sh.Gurlabh Singh and he had refused to sign the checking report, copy of the inspection report should have been pasted on conspicuous place in/outside the premises. Simultaneously, inspection report should be sent to the complainant under registered post. Opposite parties allege theft of electricity. In such a case, it was the duty of Sh. Gurlabh Singh to disconnect the supply forthwith and seal the meter/metering equipment in as found condition as per this commercial circular. All this has not been done. From this, inference is that no theft of energy was being committed. So far as affidavits Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.3 are concerned, they stand amply rebutted with affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant, who has reiterated his version in the complaint. Opposite parties have not shown that compliance of Commercial Circular No. 34/2006 and 53/2006 has been made in this case in the shape of passing Provisional Assessment Order and after completing other formalities thereafter, final order of assessment was passed.<br /> 9. In view of facts circumstances and the evidence discussed above, conclusion is that the demand raised by the opposite parties to the tune of Rs. 18,146/- through memo No. 48 and letter No. 147 dated 4.2.2008 is certainly illegal and arbitrary. Connection was disconnected and complainant has to deposit the amount under compelled circumstances. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 10. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. As per version of the opposite parties, connection has already been restored. Facts and circumstances warrant relief of refund of the amount of Rs. 18,146/- already got deposited from the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of deposit i.e. 22.2.2008 till payment. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is being accorded as above. Out of interest and compensation, one can be allowed.<br /> 11. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Refund the amount of Rs. 18,146/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of deposit i.e. 22.2.2008 till payment.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 12. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 3.4.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />