BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : CC/10/44

Date of Institution : 16.2.2010

Date of Decision : 8.11.2010

Baldev Singh s/o Surjit Singh r/o Kotkapura Road, Jaitu Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Jaitu District Faridkot.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for the illegal charges of Rs. 29,402/- vide letter/memo No. 3457 dated 29.12.2009 to the complainant Account No. PB 32/0045 DS and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said letter and to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is consumer of the opposite parties using electric connection Account No. PB 32/0045. He received letter No. 3457 dated 29.12.2009 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which demand of Rs. 29,402/- has been raised on account of alleged theft. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and submitted his objections but opposite party No. 2 has no time to hear the genuine objections. The alleged checking was done by the officials of the PSEB in the absence of the complainant. No copy of alleged checking/seizure report has ever been supplied to the complainant at any point of time nor any checking report was posted at the residence of the complainant. No detail of the calculation has been supplied to the complainant. It is denied that complainant tampered the seals of the meter to commit any theft of energy. The connected load of the complainant has been wrongly shown as 4.380 KW when the actual connected load is only 2.98 KWs. He approached the opposite party no. 2 and requested them to withdraw the illegal charges but they flatly refused to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 16.2.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, so the present complaint is not maintainable. He was committing theft of energy, so the complaint is also liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the present connection is installed in the premises of the complainant. It is also admitted that one letter No. 3457 dated 29.12.2009 has been issued by the opposite parties to the complainant and has been called upon to deposit the amount. The electricity connection of the complainant was checked by Er. Ranjit Singh AEE PSEB alongwith his team on 29.12.2009 in the presence of Harpal Kaur wife of Baldev Singh and Jagtar Singh nephew of Baldev Singh. During checking it was found that the complainant had tampered the seals of the meter. The working of the meter was also checked and it was found that the meter was working slow to the tune of 86.36%. This is the case of theft. Moreover, the load was also checked and it was found that the complainant was using 4.380 KWs instead of sanctioned load 2.98 KWs. The checking was done in the presence of the representative of the complainant who signed the same in token of its correctness and after receiving the copy of the checking report. The demand is legal and lawful. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.C-1, copies of bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5, copy of letter No. 3457 Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Amarjit Singh Ex.R-1, checking report Ex.R-2, affidavit of Er. Ranjit Singh Ex.R-3 and evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order of this Forum vide order dated 26.8.2010.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case is that the levy of Rs. 29,402/- vide letter dated 29.12.2009 Ex.C-6 allegedly on the ground of theft etc. based on checking report dated 29.12.2009 Ex.R-2 is illegal and unlawful as alleged checking was not done in the presence of either the complainant or his authorised representative. No copy of checking report even was supplied. Marking of the document to RA (Revenue Accountant) clearly suggests in view of inconsistency in the date of checking and date of marking. That in fact checking report is fabricated document. Further, there is no reference of date of checking of ERS meter which as per the instructions is required to be checked in two years by the competent authority. In this way, complainant has been deprived of his valuable right to call in question slow speed noted on the basis of such meter. Consumption data given at the backside of the checking report Ex.R-2 shows consistency in consumption. Consumption at a higher rate cannot be reconciled with the said data.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that in this case checking was made in the presence of Harpal Kaur wife and Jagtar Singh nephew of the complainant. There is specific reference as to their presence in para 2 of the written statement on merits. However, neither has been produced to prove the things to the contrary by way of duly sworn affidavits. Objection as regards the date of checking of the ERS meter has been taken for the first time. Therefore, opposite party cannot be allowed to be taken by surprise in this regard. On the other hand, checking report has been proved by Er. Ranjit Singh AEE PSEB, Enforcement Bathinda by way of his duly sworn affidavit Ex.R-3.

10. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The demand in this case for a sum of Rs. 29,402/- as raised by notice Ex.C-6 is based on checking report dated 29.12.2009 by AEE Er. Ranjit Singh. Therefore, the date of marking of the said report Ex.R-2 on 28.12.2009 cannot be said to be damaging but mere result of inadvertence as it is not uncommon that date of previous day may be given as a result of inadvertence or in view of unclear mention of figures of date of checking which on first sight can be read as 20.12.2009 instead of 29.12.2009. It is worth pointing out that Forum had to call a legible copy of checking report which was brought on record and it was made certain that in fact that date of checking is 29.12.2009 and not 20.12.2009 as it appears due to improper writing thereof. Checking report in this case has been duly proved by Er. Ranjit Singh vide his duly sworn affidavit Ex.R-3 by stating among other things that he alongwith his team checked the electricity connection of the complainant on 29.12.2009 in the presence of Harpal Kaur wife of Baldev Singh and Jagtar Singh nephew of Baldev Singh (here complainant). Er. Ranjit Singh has further stated therein that during the checking it was found that complainant had tampered with meter and was committing theft. The meter was checked and it was found that the same was working slow to the tune of 86.36%. Besides, complainant was using the excess load to the tune of 4.380 KW. Still further, he has stated that checking report was signed by representatives of the complainant who was present at the spot after receiving a copy of the checking report. Complainant has not dared to file affidavits of aforesaid representatives to rebut the stand of Er. Ranjit Singh. Therefore, in our considered opinion theft of energy stands proved in the manner stated in the checking report Ex.R-2. Complainant side did not take any objection nor challenge the demand in this respect within the stipulated time. Allegations with regard to the absence of checking of ERS meter is beyond pleadings and as such the same cannot be taken as a ground to challenge the report and slow speed arrived at by the employees of the opposite parties on the basis of it. As a matter of fact, complainant has produced no reliable evidence to prove that report of inspecting staff was incorrect. Mere raising of protest when no specific objections were file is not sufficient to find fault with the checking report which has been prepared by a Senior Functionary of the opposite parties in the rank of AEE in discharge of his official duty. This view finds support from a ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr. Versus Ashwani Kumar 2010 (2) CPC-606.

11. In the light of our above observations and findings we have found no merits in the complaint filed by Baldev Singh complainant and as such the same is dismissed. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances there is no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 8.11.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)