BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 45 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 21.04.2008<br /> Date of Service: 15.05.2008<br /> Decided On: 14.08.2008<br /> <br /> Atma Singh (aged 54 years) son of Sh.Lachhman Singh, resident of village: Takhanwadh, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.<br /> <br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Moga.<br /> 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Badhni Kalan 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.Ashok Sharma, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Atma 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.63030/- raised vide memo no.5062 dated 28.3.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Atma Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.HF84/0587 installed at his residential premises having sanctioned load of 1.74 KW. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden, he received a memo dated 28.03.2008 in which the OPs-Board demanded Rs.63030/- on account of theft of energy by using direct wire from PVC and for using excess load. That no inspection of his premises was ever made by the OPs-Board. That the complainant never used the excess load or committed any theft of energy. 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 the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. In fact, on 24.3.2008 Jagtar Singh AAE and Teja Singh Meter Inspector of the OPs-Board checked the residential premises of the complainant in presence of his representative namely Surjit Singh and found the complainant stealing the electricity red handed by artificial means i.e. by fixing direct wire from the main PVC line stopping the electric meter. They also found the complainant using the excess and unauthorized load of 2.673 KW than the sanctioned load of 1.74 KW. That the checking was conducted in presence of representative of the complainant, who duly signed the checking report. That the copy of the same was given to representative of the complainant at the spot. Thereafter, provisional order/ memo no. 5062 dated 28.3.2008 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.63030/- on account of theft of energy as well as excess load as per section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 asking the complainant to file objections, if any. But the complainant did not file any objection to this effect. Hence the assessing authority did not find any illegality in this order and made the provisional order of assessment as final. Thus, the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover the same. On merits, the OPs-Board took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in preliminary objections. 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, affidavit Ex.A2 of Surjit Singh, notice Ex.A3, bills-cum-receipts Ex.A4 to Ex.A19 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.Executive Engineer, copy of notice Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, affidavit of Jagtar Singh AAE Ex.R4 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Ashok Sharma 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.Ashok Sharma ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.63030/- raised vide memo no.5062 dated 28.3.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in theft of energy. <br /> 8. Sh.S.K.Dhir ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that on 24.3.2008 Jagtar Singh AAE and Teja Singh Meter Inspector of the OPs-Board checked the residential premises of the complainant in presence of his representative namely Surjit Singh and caught red handed the complainant while stealing the electricity by artificial means i.e. by fixing direct wire from the main PVC line stopping the electric meter. They also found the complainant using the excess and unauthorized load of 2.673 KW than the sanctioned load of 1.74 KW. That the checking was conducted in presence of representative of the complainant who duly signed the checking report. That the copy of the same was given to representative of the complainant at the spot. Thereafter, provisional order/ memo no. 5062 dated 28.3.2008 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.63030/- on account of theft of energy as well as excess load as per section 126 of Electricity Act 2003. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has some force. Admittedly, on 24.03.2008 the premises of the complainant was checked by Jagtar Singh AAE and Teja Singh Meter Inspector of the OPs-Board who found him committing theft of energy in the aforesaid manners and also using the excess load of 0.933 KW. Both the charges of theft and using excess load have been proved from the checking report Ex.R3 which was duly signed by Surjit Singh the representative of the complainant at the spot. To further strengthen the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the OPs-Board have produced affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.Executive Engineer, copy of notice Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, affidavit of Jagtar Singh AAE Ex.R4 of checking officer.<br /> 9. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not stealing the electricity and using the excess load except his own affidavit Ex.A1. There is no corroboration to his affidavit that he was not stealing the electricity and using the excess load 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.<br /> 10. On the other hand, 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 24.3.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means and using the excess load. <br /> 11. Moreover, in case of fraudulent abstraction of energy this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint made by the complainant. On this point rulings cited IV (2003) Consumer Protection Judgements-376 ‘South West Distribution Co.Ltd (BSES) Versus Inder Pal Thapar of Delhi State Commission, II (2004) Consumer Protection Judgements- 20 Puran Chand versus B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Limited & Anr. of Hon’ble Delhi State Commission and 2006(3) The Punjab Law Reporter page 14 titled as Delhi Vidyut Board Vs.Devindra Singh and another of Delhi High Court are quite applicable to the facts of the present case. It has been held that in such circumstances the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act and the dispute between the parties can not be said to be a ‘consumer dispute’. Similar view was held by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in III (2003) Consumer Protection Judgements-66 Delhi Vidyut Board Versus D.N.Shukla.<br /> 12. Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs.63030/- on account of theft of energy and excess load as per the Electricity Act, 2003. The answer to this question is in negative. Notice Ex.R2 (Ex.A3 same document) 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. Thus, the complainant can be charged as per 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. <br /> 13. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned demand of Rs.63030/- raised vide memo dated 28.3.2008 is liable to be set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board can charge the complainant for theft of energy as per the Commercial Circular no.53/2006. <br /> 14. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. The demand of Rs.63030/- raised by the OPs-Board vide memo dated 28.3.2008 is set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board is entitled to issue fresh notice/ demand on account of theft of energy as per 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 shall 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:14.08.2008.<br /> <br /> <br />