DISTRICT CONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 80 of 11.3.2008 Decided on : 29.4.2008 <br /> <br /> Gurmail Singh S/o Sh. Jangir Singh, R/o Village Pakka Khurd, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.S.D.O./A.E.E, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Balwant Singh Mann, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. J.P.S Brar, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to quash the demand of Rs. 8,810/-; refrain from recovering it; pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and Rs. 3,300/- as costs.<br /> 2. Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that he is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. PK-28/215. He is paying the electricity consumption charges regularly. Nothing is outstanding. His bio-monthly average consumption is ranging from Rs.350/- to Rs. 400/-. Notice No. 115 dated 1.2.2008 was received by him from the opposite parties vide which demand of Rs. 8,810/- has been raised alleging that Task Force had checked the connection on 23.1.2008 and he was found committing theft of electricity by way of bye-passing the meter. He assails this notice as illegal,null and void and not binding upon him on the grounds that his connection was not checked by the officials on 23.1.2008 in his presence or in the presence of his representative; alleged checking does not bear his signatures or the signatures of his representative; copy of the checking report was not supplied; wire was not recovered at the spot; photographs were not taken; notice has been issued in a mechanical manner; no FIR was lodged against him; column of his representative has been left blank; no time of alleged checking has been mentioned; no opportunity of hearing much less personal hearing was provided; meter was being checked by the officials of the Board bio-monthly at the time of taking reading but no defect was pointed out and opposite parties have failed to mention the basis or criteria of the alleged demand. Opposite parties were requested to quash the demand, but to no effect. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking preliminary objections that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainant is not consumer and complaint has been filed with malafide intention. On merits, they admit that domestic electricity connection has been installed in the premises of the complainant. Notice No. 115 dated 1.2.2008 was issued raising demand of Rs. 8,810/- which is legal and valid. Checking was done on 23.1.2008 as per rules. Complainant was found indulging in theft of energy. They deny that the demand is liable to be set-aside on the grounds mentioned in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurmail Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of bill-cum-show cause notice dated 1.2.2008 (Ex.C.2) and photocopy of bill dated 20.5.2006 (Ex.C.3).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2) of S/Sh. Parampal Singh Buttar, SDO and Sukhdev Singh, J.E respectively and photocopy of checking report dated 23.1.2008 (Ex.R.3).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 7. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Mann learned counsel for the complainant are that no checking was done in the presence of the complainant. Site of checking was not got photographed by the Task Force. Wire with which theft of energy was allegedly being committed by way of bye-passing the meter was not taken into possession. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant, copy of the impugned notice dated 1.2.2008 Ex.C.2 and copy of the bill dated 20.5.2006 Ex.C.3 according to which the amount payable by due date was Rs. 670/-.<br /> 8. Mr. Brar, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that mere fact that site has not been photographed or wire has not been taken into possession cannot assume any significance in the facts and circumstances of this case. There is other abundant evidence on the record which proves the theft of energy.<br /> 9. We have considered respective arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties on this aspect of the matter. Bald affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant stands amply rebutted with the affidavits of S/Sh. Parampal Singh Buttar, SDO and Sukhdev<br /> <br /> Singh, J.E. Copy of the checking report dated 23.1.2008 is Ex.R.3. Sh. Parampal Singh Buttar has stated in so many words that checking was made by the Task Force comprising him and Sh. Sukhdev Singh, J.E on 23.1.2008. Complainant was present. It was observed that complainant had put a wire in the main terminal phase and had further connected it with wire. In this manner, he had bye-passed the meter. Supply was going on, but meter was stopped as has been shown in the sketch prepared on the checking report. He was using the electricity by unauthorised means. Checking report was prepared on his instructions. Complainant had refused to sign the checking report. Accordingly, copy of it was affixed at the main door of the premises. This affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Parampal Singh Buttar stands corroborated with the affidavit Ex.R.2 of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, J.E. All the official acts performed by the public servants in the discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct unless otherwise proved. There is no material on the record to show that either Sh. Parampal Singh Buttar or Sh. Sukhdev Singh is in any way interested to give affidavit against the complainant. There is no evidence that they have any animus against him. Mere fact that S/Sh. Parampal Singh Buttar and Sukhdev Singh are employees of the Board is itself no ground to dub them as unreliable persons. Complainant did not muster courage to cross-examine them. In these circumstances, facts that site has not been got photographed and the wire has not been taken into possession loose importance, particularly when complainant was present at the time of checking as per Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2 and he had refused to sign the checking report. Accordingly, we hold that theft of energy which was being committed in the manner stated by the opposite parties is proved. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that impugned memo/letter No. 115 dated 1.2.2008 is illegal on account of the fact that opposite parties have illegally charged Rs. 1,000/- as ACD and Rs.120/- as<br /> <br /> RCO, is tenable. Admittedly, electricity connection of the complainant was not disconnected by the Task Force at the time of checking the electricity connection. Hence, the question of paying RCO by the complainant, does not arise. Learned counsel for the opposite parties was specifically asked as to whether consumer in such like cases is liable to pay ACD charges. He could not satisfy this Forum. Method for charging amount for unauthorised use of electricity has been given in Commercial Circular No 53/2006. It does not reveal that ACD can be charged in such a case. Accordingly, complainant is not liable to pay Rs.1,000/- as ACD and Rs.120/- as RCO. Since, opposite parties have charged this amount of Rs. 1,120/- in excess, t here is deficiency in service on their part. Complainant is liable to pay Rs. 7,690/- only. Demand of remaining amount is certainly illegal and arbitrary.<br /> 10. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our forgoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties not to recover the amount beyond Rs. 7,690/- as the demand for the remaining amount is illegal and arbitrary. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. There is no case to allow it in this case as he was found committing theft of energy. When it is so, the question of mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment to him, does not arise.<br /> 11. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Withdraw the demand beyond Rs. 7,690/- from the complainant on the basis of the memo/letter No. 115 dated 1.2.2008, copy of which is Ex.C.2.<br /> ( ii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 12. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be<br /> <br /> also consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 29.4.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br />