DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 228 of 08-08-2007<br /> Decided on :16-10-2007<br /> <br /> Avtar Singh S/o Arjan Singh,R/o Nathana, Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2.Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Nathana,<br /> 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. K.S. Gill, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sukhbir Singh Dhillon, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Complainant Avtar Singh is an agriculturist. Previously he had obtained an electricity connection with connected load of 10 BHP for running tube well. He got the load extended to the extent of 5 BHP. In this manner, the total connected load became 15 BHP. Memo No. 1080 dated 10.7.07 raising demand of Rs. 20,000/- was sent by the opposite parties to him alleging that he was found using connected load of 20 BHP. In this manner, he was committing theft of electricity/using excess load. Complainant assails this demand as illegal, arbitrary, null and void on the ground that he was not committing theft of electricity nor was he using excess load and as such impugned demand be withdrawn. He approached the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned memo, but to no effect. To the contrary, they extended threat to disconnect the connection if amount was not deposited. It is further averred by him that due to serving of the notice, he has undergone physical and mental agony. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned notice; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- on account of sufferings and litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present from; this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct; he has got no locus standi and cause of action to file it and complaint is false and frivolous. Inter-alia their plea is that complainant has not come with clean hands. He was holding electricity connection with sanctioned load of 10 BHP. Thereafter he got it extended to 15 BHP. Checking was made by Sr. Executive Engineer Enforcement-II, Bathinda with the assistance of Junior Engineer B.S.. Chahal and other officials of the PSEB on 4.7.07 in the presence of Jagsir Singh, representative of the complainant. It was found that he was running two motors with the same switch starter. One motor was of 15 HP whereas the other was of 5 BHP. In this manner, total load which was being consumed was 20 BHP as against the sanctioned load of 15 BHP. He was using 5 BHP load in excess. Detailed checking report with existing site plan showing the manner of using excess load was prepared in the presence of Jagsir Singh who had appended his signatures on the checking report. It is a case of theft of energy. On the basis of checking, demand notice was issued raising demand of Rs. 20,000/- on account of theft for excess load. They deny that memo is illegal, null and void and there is deficiency in service on their part. Remaining averments in the complaint are also denied.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-2), postal receipts (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4), copy of application 26.7.07 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of Pass Book of electricity connection (Ex. C-6), photocopy of Notice (Ex. C-7), photocopy of Memo No. 1363 dated 30.7.07 (Ex. C-8) and photocopy of checking (Ex. C-9).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Jarnail Singh, S.D.O. (Ex. R-1), photocopy of memo No. 1080 dated 10.7.07 (Ex. R-2), photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-3), photocopy of memo No. 1363 dated 30.7.07 (Ex. R-4), photocopy of CC.No. 53/2006 (Ex. R-5) and photocopy of Electricity Act, 2003 Pages 73 & 134 (Ex. R-6 & Ex. R-7) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite parties.<br /> 6. Argument on the legal side pressed into service by Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the opposite parties is that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the complainant has opted to avail the remedy concerning the matter in dispute before Dispute Settlement Committee of the Board by way of moving application.<br /> 7. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that mere filing of the application to the Dispute Settlement Committee does not debar the complainant from approaching this Forum for getting his grievances redressed.<br /> 8. Rival arguments have been considered by us.<br /> 9. Complainant himself is relying upon the application dated 26.7.07, copy of which is Ex. C-5. This application has been moved by him to the Dispute Settlement Committee of Punjab State Electricity Board concerning the demand of Rs. 20,000/- raised vide memo No. 1080 dated 10.7.07. This demand is the subject matter of this complaint as well. Such like matter had come for consideration before Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of M/s. Gaurav Industries Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others in Appeal No. 1253 of 2001 decided on 13.4.05. It was held that “To challenge the demand notice, the complainant had more than one remedies; one, to go before the Civil Court; second, to go before the Committees constituted by the PSEB itself to resolve disputes; and third, to go before the Consumer Fora. The consumer have chosen one remedy and taking it to a logical end cannot be allowed to avail the other remedy. Once he has chosen a particular remedy, he must take it to a logical end by challenging before the higher authorities or before the Civil Court or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Consumer Protection Act does not provide for any such remedy after a consumer has chosen a remedy under a particular statute/rules or regulations.” For this another authority mentioned by the Hon'ble Commission is O P Aggarwal Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer, PSEB in Appeal No. 879 of 1999 decided on 23.4.01. Once complainant approach the Dispute Settlement Committee of the Board for getting his grievances redressed, he cannot knock the door of consumer Forum for the same relief. In this view of the matter, reference can also be made to the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Smt. Shobha Bhutani 2006(CTJ) 771( CP)(NCDRC).<br /> 10. Since complainant has assailed the demand of Rs. 20,000/- before Dispute Settlement committee of the Board and is availing the remedy before that Committee, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Fora under the Act. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Complainant is at liberty to pursue his remedy before Dispute Settlement Committee, if so desired.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 16-10-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member