BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 32 of 2008 Instituted On: 02.04.2008 Date of Service: 15.05.2008 Decided On: 04.09.2008 Gurdeep Singh (aged 65 years) son of Sadhu Singh, resident of village: Gholia Kalan, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Smadh Bhai, Distt.Moga. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member. Present: Sh.R.P.Shahi, Adv.counsel for complainant. Sh.R.K.Goyal, Adv. counsel for the OPs. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh. Gurdeep 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.20143/- raised vide memo dated 27.02.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Gurdeep Singh complainant is a consumer of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.DT63/0008 installed at his residential premises having sanctioned load of 3.72 KW in the name of one Gurmel Singh son of Sheetal Singh. That the complainant has been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden, he received a memo no.266 dated 27.02.2008 in which the OPs-Board demanded Rs.20143/- on account of theft of energy. Moreover, the OPs-Board has mentioned the wrong name and address of the complainant on the said 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. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.R.K.Goyal 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 has concealed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum; that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint and that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands because the complainant is not their consumer. On merits, it was averred that first of all, the complainant is not a consumer under the Act because the disputed connection has been installed in the name of one Gurmel Singh son of Sheetal Singh with whom the complainant Gurdeep Singh has no concern whatsoever. Moreover, the complainant has not disclosed in what capacity he has filed the present complaint and claiming himself as a consumer of the OPs-Board. In fact, on 23.02.2008 Sh.Bhola Ram, Junior Engineer, Smadh Bhai, Sub Division, Moga checked the residential premises where the electric connection in question was installed and found him using the electricity by illegal means i.e. by inserting wire from main PVC service joint in grip on outer side. That the checking was conducted in the presence of complainant but he refused to sign the same and also refused to accept the notice. Thus, it was a case of theft of energy. Thereafter, memo no. 266 dated 27.2.2008 was issued to Gurmail Singh the original consumer demanding Rs.20143/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 on account of theft of energy 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. 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of notice Ex.A2, copy of bill Ex.A3 and closed his evidence. 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Damanjit Singh Toor Sr.XEN and Sh.Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Engineer, affidavit Ex.R2 of Sh. Bhola Ram, Junior Engineer, copy of notice Ex.R3, copy of report Ex.R4 and closed their evidence. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.R.P.Shahi ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.R.K.Goyal ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 7. Sh.R.P.Shahi, ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.20143/- raised vide memo no.266 dated 27.02.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in theft of energy. 8. On the other hand, Sh.R.K.Goyal ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has argued that the present complaint is not maintainable because the electric connection is in the name of Gurmel Singh and complainant has no concern whatsoever with the electric connection in question. Moreover, the OPs-Board never sent the aforesaid memo to the complainant Gurdeep Singh. Thus, the complainant has no right, title or interest to file the present complaint. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has some force. Admittedly, the electric connection in question was installed in the name of one Gurmel Singh. There is not an iota of evidence on record if the complainant had purchased the premises / property from said Gurmel Singh and thereafter got transferred the electric connection in his name or filed any application before OPs-Board for transfer of the said connection in his name or taken the said premises on rental basis from its original consumer. In this regard, section 2 (1)(d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down that a consumer means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purposes. So Gurdeep Singh complainant has failed to prove that he has become a consumer of the OPs-Board. 9. For arguments sake, if it is presumed that the complaint is maintainable even then the impugned demand is legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. It is the case of the OPs-Board that on 23.02.2008 Sh.Bhola Ram, Junior Engineer, Smadh Bhai, Sub Division checked the premises where the electric connection in question was installed in the presence of the complainant and found him using the electricity by illegal means i.e. by inserting wire from main PVC service joint in grip on outer side. That the checking was conducted in the presence of complainant but he refused to sign the same. Thereafter, memo no. 266 dated 27.2.2008 was issued to Gurmail Singh the original consumer demanding Rs.20143/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 on account of theft of energy. In the instant case, the OPs-Board had issued the notice of provisional assessment for unauthorized use of electricity in exercise of power under section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 asking the complainant to give its reply within 7 days. But the complainant has failed to file any reply against the same. Thus, the said notice has become the final order. 10. Moreover, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because the only remedy available to the complainant is to file an appeal under section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 before the Appellant Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner/ Addl.Deputy Commissioner or Sub Divisional Magistrate as the case may be, against the orders of the Assessing Officer made under section 126 of the said Act. Hence, in view of the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 and circulars of the PSEB, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint on the allegations that the complainant was found committing theft of energy in aforesaid manners. 11. Furthermore, the charge of theft has been proved from the checking report Ex.R4. To further corroborate it, the OPs-Board have produced joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Damanjit Singh Toor, Sr.XEN and Sh.Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Engineer, affidavit Ex.R2 of Sh. Bhola Ram, Junior Engineer, copy of notice Ex.R3, copy of report Ex.R4. 12. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not stealing the 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. Thus, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and we discard the same. 13. Further, 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 23.02.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means. Thus, the impugned demand of Rs.20143/- made from the complainant on account of theft of energy by the OPs-Board was quite legal and valid and as per rules and instructions of the PSEB. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove if there was any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs-Board. 14. To prove the aforesaid contentions, the OPs-Board has produced joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Damanjit Singh Toor, Sr.XEN and Sh.Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Engineer, affidavit Ex.R2 of Sh. Bhola Ram, Junior Engineer, copy of notice Ex.R3, copy of report Ex.R4. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and other documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A3. 15. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order shall be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla) Member Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:04.09.2008.
