DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 159 of 02.06.2008<br /> Decided on : 29-08-2008<br /> <br /> Gurcharan Singh S/o Sh. Dial Singh aged about 30 years R/o Gali No. 10/11 Bala Ram Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patial, through its Secretary.<br /> 2.SDO/AEE, Cantt. Sub Division, PSEB Bathinda. <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Deepak Kumar, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Complainant was holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. BN 44/0142-H with sanctioned load of 2.88 KW. He was making payment of the electricity consumption bills regularly. Due to the non-payment of the electricity consumption charges meter was removed by the opposite parties about six months prior to the date of filing this complaint. Memo No. 594 dated 15.5.08 issued by the opposite parties was received by him vide which demand of Rs. 55,149/- was raised from him. It is asserted that nothing was due against him and he was not committing theft of electricity by way of connecting direct wire with LT pole. Moreover officials of the opposite parties did not remove the wire. Site was not got photographed. Wire was not packed in cardboard box nor sealed nor his signatures were obtained. Infact no checking was done at the spot much less in his presence or in the presence of his representative. It is admitted fact that meter was removed about six months back and at the most charges can be recovered only for a period of about six months i.e. from the date of removal of the meter upto the date of alleged checking although he does not admit that any checking was done. Period for which demand has been raised has not been mentioned in the memo. He further asserts that bill dated 16.9.07 through which demand of Rs. 10,110/- has been raised is illegal. He offers that he is ready and willing to pay the amount of actual monthly consumption bills. Opposite parties were requested to withdraw the impugned demand and to install the earlier meter, but to no effect. In these circumstances, instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to install previous meter; restore electricity supply to his premises; withdraw bill dated 16.9.07 to the extent of Rs. 10,110/- and memo dated 15.5.08; pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and botheration besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present Form; complainant is not consumer; this Forum has got not jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as dispute pertains to theft of electricity; complainant has not come with clean hands; complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; he is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct and complaint is false and frivolous. Inter-alia their plea is that electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected since long due to non-payment of consumption charges. Even thereafter he did not deposit the due amount, so electricity meter was removed. On 13.5.08 spot checking was done by the checking staff while they were discharging their official duties in the presence of the son of the complainant. During checking it was found that by way of putting direct wire from the LT pole, he was getting electricity and using load to the extent of 2.313KW i.e. by illegal means. Detailed checking report was prepared at the site. Son of the complainant in whose presence checking was done had refused to sign the checking report. Note to this effect was made on the report itself. On the basis of checking, Memo No. 594 dated 15.5.08 was issued on account of theft of electricity which is legal and valid. Complainant is liable to deposit the amount of Rs. 55,149/- as well as the amount of the bill dated 16.9.07. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavits (Ex C-1 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of bill (Ex. C-2) and photocopy of notice to provisional order (Ex. C-4).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties two affidavits of S/Sh. Pritpal Singh AE/SDO and Kirpal Singh, AEE (Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2) respectively, photocopies of bill ledgers (Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-17), photocopy of calculation sheet (Ex. R-19), photocopy of PDCO (Ex. R-19) and photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-20) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Complainant is seeking relief regarding bill dated 16.9.07 and Memo No. 594 dated 15.5.08 copies of which are Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-4 respectively. Learned counsel for the complainant has made separate statement today that complainant is ready and willing to pay the bill amount of Rs. 12,675/- shown in the bill dated 16.9.07copy of which is Ex. C-2 and he does not claim any relief regarding this bill. Hence relief claimed regarding bill dated 16.9.07 stands relinquished by the complainant. Accordingly complaint qua this relief stands dismissed.<br /> 7. Opposite parties allege that complainant was found committing theft of electricity on 13.5.08. Allegation of theft of electricity is to be proved by the opposite parties like a criminal charges. For this, there should be cogent and convincing evidence. Theft of electricity cannot be concluded on the basis of inferences. To prove theft, opposite parties are relying upon the affidavit of Sh. Kirpal Singh, AEE who states that connection of the complainant was checked on 13.5.08 by him in the presence of family members of the complainant/his representative and complainant was found committing theft of electricity as he was using electricity by way of putting direct wire from LT pole and was using load to the extent of 2.313 KW by illegal means. It is further in his affidavit that checking report was prepared in the presence of family members of the complainant/his representative and he had refused to sign it. It was told by him that he is the son of Gittan Singh. Ex. R-20 is the copy of the checking report.<br /> 8. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that evidence on the record does not establish theft of electricity. To the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that affidavit Ex. R-2 and copy of the report Ex. R-20 prove that complainant was committing theft of electricity.<br /> 9. After screening evidence on the record and considering the rival contentions, we do not feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Affidavit Ex. R-2 of Sh. Kirpal Singh does not show who were other officials who were accompanying him at the time of checking. Neither in the reply of the complaint nor in the affidavit Ex. R-2 name of the person in whose presence alleged checking was done on 13.5.08 has been mentioned. Plea of the complainant is that he was holding electricity connection No. BN 44/0142-H. Note has been given on the checking report copy of which is Ex. R-20 that at the time of checking son of Gittan Singh was present and he had refused to sign it. In the reply of the complaint, their stance is that checking was done in the presence of the son of the complainant. In this case, complainant is Gurcharan Singh and not Gittan Singh. Affidavit Ex. R-2 leads us nowhere about the identity of the person in whose presence alleged checking was done. As per Ex. R-2 checking was done in the presence of family members of the complainant/his representative. It was not known who was the family member of the complainant or his representative and how he was connected with the complainant. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold even if it is taken for arguments that checking was done that the same was done in the presence of the complainant or his representative. Wire which was allegedly being used for commission of theft of electricity has not been taken into possession. To prove the theft of electricity, the same should have been taken into possession to satisfy this Forum about the allegation of theft. This circumstance casts serious cloud on the story of the opposite parties. In case complainant was actually using the electricity illegally, unauthorisedly and by way of theft, the site could be got photographed or videographed. No reason has been assigned as to why this course was not adopted by the concerned checking officials. This further gives jolt to the story of the opposite parties. Further more there is non-compliance of Commercial Circular No. 53/06 and other rules and regulations of the Board. At the risk of repetition, it is again mentioned that even if there was checking and representative of the complainant was present and he had refused to sign the checking report, it was the duty of the checking officer to affix the copy of the checking report in or outside the premises of the complainant. Simultaneously he should have sent the copy of the checking report to the complainant by registered post. All this has not been done. Hence there is violation of Commercial Circular and rules and regulations of the Board as well. Had there been theft of energy, this lapse could not be expected. From this, adverse inference is drawn against the story of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, conclusion is that the opposite parties have not succeeded in proving theft of electricity by way of leading satisfactory evidence. When it is so, Memo No. 594 through which demand of Rs. 55,149/- has been raised is certainly illegal, arbitrary and null and void. Accordingly, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties on this aspect of the matter is proved.<br /> 10. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, directions deserve to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw Memo No. 594 dated 15.5.08 copy of which is Ex. C-4. Another relief claimed by the complainant is that his electricity connection be restored by installing previous meter. In our view this relief cannot be allowed to the complainant as he is yet to deposit the amount of bill dated 16.9.07. Connection has been permanently disconnected on 30.8.07. He may apply for connection after depositing the amount of the bill and other permissible amount if any under the rules. He is also craving for compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. Facts and circumstances of this case do not warrant that this relief be allowed to the complainant as he is yet deposit the amount of the bill. Since amount of the bill is due towards him, there is no question of causing mental tension, harassment and botheration by the opposite parties.<br /> 11. In the result, complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Withdraw Memo No. 594 dated 15.5.08 copy of which is Ex. C-4.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of its order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 29-08-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member<br /> 'iki' <br /> <br />