BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 113 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 08.09.2008<br /> Date of Service: 24.09.2008<br /> Decided On: 18.11.2008<br /> <br /> Balwinder Singh (aged 46 years) son of Sh.Ram Singh, resident of village: Khosa Kotla, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.<br /> <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. SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Kot Ise Khan, Tehsil & 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 /> <br /> Present: Sh.Pardeep Bharti, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.Ajay Gulati, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Balwinder 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.25130/- raised vide bill dated 19.8.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment. <br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Balwinder Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.KH83/0470 installed at his premises with sanctioned load of 4.60 KW. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That the OPs-Board had sent a bill dated 19.8.2008 in which they added Rs.25130/- on account of ‘theft of energy’. This allegation of the OPs-Board is totally wrong and denied. The complainant never indulged in ‘theft of energy’. That no prior notice before the inclusion of the impugned amount in his consumption bill has been issued. That no reason has been explained in the said bill for such excessive amount. That the complainant requested the OPs-Board 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.Ajay Gulati, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. On merits, it was averred that in fact on 02.02.2008 the meter of the complainant was checked by AEE, PSEB Sub Division, Dagru and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by placing the meter box diagonally. The meter was not recording the consumption. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, notice no. 427 dated 25.2.2008 was served upon the complainant to deposit Rs.24393/- on account of ‘theft of energy’ under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. 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, copies of bills Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Add.SE and Sh.Gurjant Singh Addl.SDO Ex.R1, notice Ex.R2, checking report Ex.R3, copy of revised notice Ex.R4 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Pardeep Bharti ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.Ajay Gulati ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.Pardeep Bharti ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.25130/- raised by the OPs-Board vide bill dated 19.8.2008 was wrong and illegal because the OPs-Board has failed to prove any ‘theft of energy’ against the complainant. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has full force. According to the OPs-Board, on 02.02.2008 the meter of the complainant was checked by AEE, PSEB Sub Division, Dagru and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by placing the meter box diagonally. But it is neither mentioned in the written reply nor in the joint affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Add.SE and Sh.Gurjant Singh Addl.SDO Ex.R1 that as to who had checked the connection of the complainant. The OPs-Board has also failed to disclose the name of said AEE who effected the said checking and found the complainant allegedly committing the ‘theft of energy’. Moreover, no affidavit of the checking officer in support of their contention has been filed. Thus, in the absence of affidavit of checking officer, it can not be held that the complainant was committing ‘theft of energy’ allegedly checking conducted on 02.02.2008. The joint affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Add.SE and Sh.Gurjant Singh Addl.SDO Ex.R1 is of formal character because they were not the members of raiding party and their affidavit failed to prove the allegation of ‘theft of energy’ being committed by the complainant. Thus, the OPs-Board has committed deficiency in service in claiming the impugned amount.<br /> 8. To prove the aforesaid contention, the complainant produced his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of bills Ex.A2 to Ex.A5. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the joint affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Add.SE and Sh.Gurjant Singh Addl.SDO Ex.R1 and other documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 and we discard the same.<br /> 9. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has merit and the same is accepted. The demand of Rs.25130/- raised by the OPs-Board vide bill dated 19.8.2008 from the complainant is set aside and quashed. Keeping in view 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) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:18.11.2008.<br /> hrg*<br />