BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 74 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 20.06.2008<br /> Date of Service: 17.07.2008<br /> Decided On: 25.09.2008<br /> <br /> Bakhtaur Singh (aged 70 years) son of Sh.Bachan Singh, resident of village: Dala, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.<br /> Complainant.<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 /> 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 /> Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.K.K.Tiwari, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.Satvir Singh, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Bakhtaur 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.26313/- raised vide memo dated 12.03.2008 and subsequently included the impugned amount in his consumption bill dated 6.5.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Bakhtaur Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.DF/72/0722W installed at his residential premises with sanctioned load of 1.18 KW. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That the OPs-Board had sent a memo dated 12.03.2008 in which they demanded Rs.26313/- on account of ‘theft of energy’. That no checking of any kind before issuance of the said memo was ever conducted by the OPs-Board. That the said demand is imaginary and prepared by the OPs-Board by sitting in the office. That the complainant never indulged in theft of energy as alleged in this memo. 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.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 and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. In fact on 06.03.2008, Sh.Jagtar Singh AEE and Sh.Sukhdev Singh JE jointly checked the residential premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by applying direct kundi after opening the plate of the block of the meter. He was also found using the unauthorized/ excess load of 0.56 KW. The checking was made in the presence of complainant, who duly signed the checking report and received the copy. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. Then, notice no. 4578 dated 12.03.2008 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.26313/- on account of theft of energy, but the complainant did not pay the same. Thereafter, the impugned amount has been added in his consumption bill dated 6.5.2008, to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. On merits, the OPs-Board took the same and similar plea 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, copy of bill Ex.A2, copy of notice Ex.A3, copies of bills Ex.A4 to Ex.A8, copy of certificate Ex.A9, copy of passbook Ex.A10 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.XEN and Bakhshish Singh SDO Ex.R1, copy of memo Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.K.K.Tiwari 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.<br /> 7. Sh.K.K.Tiwari ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.26313/- raised vide memo dated 12.03.2008 and thereafter, adding the said amount in the consumption bill dated 6.5.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in theft of energy. <br /> 8. On the other hand, Sh.Satvir Singh ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has argued that on 06.03.2008, Sh.Jagtar Singh AEE and Sh.Sukhdev Singh JE jointly checked the residential premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by applying direct kundi after opening the plate of the block of the meter. He was also found using the unauthorized/excess load of 0.56 KW. The checking was made in the presence of complainant who duly signed the checking report and received the copy. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. Admittedly, on 06.03.2008, Sh.Jagtar Singh AEE and Sh.Sukhdev Singh JE jointly checked the residential premises of the complainant who found him committing theft of energy in the aforesaid manners. To further strengthen the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the OPs-Board has produced joint affidavit of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.XEN and Bakhshish Singh SDO Ex.R1, copy of memo Ex.R2 and copy of checking report Ex.R3.<br /> 9. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not committing ‘theft of 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 and using unauthorized excess load. Thus, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and we discard the same.<br /> 10. 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 06.03.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means and using of unauthorized excess load.<br /> 11. Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs.26313/- 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.R2 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.R2 did not contain the provisions of inviting objections and of personal hearing as provided under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. When the notice was given under the old Act, 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 provisional assessment to the complainant under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (New Act), 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 /> 12. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned demand of Rs.26313/- raised vide memo dated 12.03.2008 and thereafter, including the said amount in the consumption bill dated 6.5.2008 of the complainant is wrong and illegal and we set aside and quash the same. However, the OPs-Board can charge the complainant for theft of energy as per the old provisions of Commercial Circular no.53/2006. <br /> 13. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. The demand of Rs.26313/- raised by the OPs-Board vide memo dated 12.03.2008 and thereafter, including the said amount in the consumption bill dated 6.5.2008 of the complainant 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. <br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:25.09.2008.<br /> hrg*<br />