DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> <br /> C.C. No. 257 of 31.8.2007<br /> Decided on : 18.12.2007<br /> <br /> Hari Ram S/o Sh. Lachhman Dass S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Railway Crossing, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. <br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary<br /> 2. A.E.E./S.D.O, City Sub Division, Punjab State Elecy. Board, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, 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 refund Rs. 13,410/- got deposited from him; withdraw bill dated 25.8.2007 payable by 7.9.2007 vide which arrears of Rs.17,747/- besides electricity duty/octroi charges of Rs.4,961/- and Rs. 567/- have been shown or the same be quashed; pay Rs. 30,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and botheration, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that he is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. GN-21-0030. Meter installed in his premises was changed on 20.11.2004 to instal electronic meter in its place as per scheme of the Board. At that time, meter No. 122547 was intact. Seals of the removed meter were intact and it was functioning properly. It was removed in routine and sent to M.E Lab without packing or sealing in card board box. Even his signatures were not obtained on the MCO. Bill dated 26.8.2005 for Rs. 21,686/- payable upto 9.9.2005 was received by him in which a sum of Rs. 13,151/- was shown as arrears on the allegation of theft. He assails this bill as illegal, null and void. In the bill dated 24.6.2005 payable by 8.7.2005 a sum of Rs. 16,991/- was shown in the column of sundry charges. He (complainant) had approached opposite party No. 1 to know the details of this amount of Rs. 16,991/-. Bill was corrected and sundry charges were shown to the tune of Rs. 5,750/- in place of Rs. 16,991/-, although no amount of sundry charges was due. Details of Rs. 5,750/- were not given. After adding the amount of Rs. 5,750/- in the consumption charges, a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was demanded from him. It is added that in order to avoid harassment and disconnection of electricity connection, full amount of Rs. 8,000/- was deposited on 7.7.2005. On further inquiry, he was told that sundry charges of Rs. 5,750/- were regarding theft of energy, although he did not steal the energy. In the bill dated 26.8.2005, a sum of Rs. 13,151/- was shown as arrears and Rs. 175/- as sundry charges and allowances. He assails the demand of Rs. 13,151/- and Rs. 175/- as illegal. It is further alleged by him that officials of opposite party No. 2 had told that they have committed mistake which cannot be rectified by them and that matter<br /> <br /> would be decided by the Dispute Settlement Committee. He was asked to deposit Rs. 7,660/- which were deposited by him vide cheque No. 913325 dated 2.9.2005. About two years have elapsed, but Dispute Settlement Committee has failed to decide the matter. Finding no faith in it, an application dated 30.8.2006 was moved to withdraw the case pending before it. Total demanded amount of bill dated 24.6.2005 payable by due date was Rs. 19,250/-. It was corrected by the officials of the opposite parties themselves on 7.7.2005 and a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was got deposited. Officials of the opposite parties have committed an error may be due to computerization system that the figure of Rs. 21,151/- i.e. the amount payable after due date was taken and Rs. 8,000/- were not deducted from the same. Remaining amount of Rs. 13,151/- was shown in the next bill as arrears. There was no question of taking figure Rs.21,151/-. At the most, figure of Rs. 19,250/- should be taken. When bill was corrected and amount was reduced to Rs. 8,000/-, there was no question of showing arrears in the future bill. Basis of the theft has not been explained. He was not called in the M.E Lab. No notice before checking of the meter was given. Alleged checking of the meter in the M.E Lab is one sided. Condition of the meter was not shown to him at the time of installation or its removal. Meter was not removed in his presence. Prior to the issuance of the bill dated 26.8.2005, the status of the meter was 'O' means okay. He did not tamper with the meter. Officials of the opposite parties never pointed out any type of defect in the working of the meter. Meter was not sent to the Chief Electrical Inspector. Even the memo does not show who tampered with the alleged M.E seals.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no cause of action to file it; he has not approached this Forum with clean hands; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; dispute should be<br /> <br /> referred to the Dispute Settlement Committee; complaint is false and frivolous; complainant is not consumer; mater in dispute is not covered under the definition of service and complainant is using the electricity for commercial purpose. Inter-alia, their plea is that electricity meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No. ;74/10856 dated 19.5.2003 effected on 20.11.2004 since its status was 'D' as per their officials. It was changed as per rules. It was duly packed in card board box, sealed and signed. Sealed box was handed over to the concerned J.E for sending the same to the M.E Lab. Complainant was duly informed to come present in the M.E Lab personally or through his representative to get the meter checked in his presence. His representative had come in the M.E Lab on 11.4.2005. Meter was taken out from the card board box after removing the seals in his presence and he had signed accepting it. It was found that M.E seals and M.E Clamps were tampered. On opening the meter, it was found that for controlling the consumption of electricity, PC wire of Y-Phase was also broken. He had involved himself in controlling the consumption by unauthorised means. After checking meter was again packed and handed over to J.E. M.E Lab report was signed by the officials who checked the meter. Tejinder Singh representative of the complainant had also signed it in token of its correctness. Memo No. 1182 dated 2.5.2005 was issued to the complainant making demand of Rs. 16,965/- which was legal and valid. He failed to make the payment. Hence, amount was added in the electricity consumption bill dated 24.6.2005 according to which demand of Rs. 19,250/- was made which included current bill as well as the amount of Rs. 16,991/- demanded vide memo No. 1182. Complainant had approached Dispute Settlement Committee of the Board. A sum of Rs. 5,700/- was deposited by him as per rules. Demand of the amount is legal and valid. They admit that bill dated 26.8.2005 was for Rs. 21,686/- payable upto 9.9.2005. Out of which<br /> <br /> amount of Rs. 13,151/- was shown as arrears. Bill dated 24.6.2005 was payable by 8.7.2005. In the amount of the bill Rs. 16,991/- were shown as sundry charges. Complainant had approached them and made request that his case be referred to the Dispute Settlement Committee. Accordingly, amount of Rs. 5,750/- was got deposited as 1/3rd amount of the disputed amount. Less amount was got deposited from him on his request. Since the complainant has already deposited Rs. 5,750/-; he has failed to appear before the Dispute Settlement Committee despite repeated requests and on 30.8.2006 he had requested to withdraw the case, there is no deficiency in service on their part. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Hari Ram complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.4),photocopies of bills (Ex.C.2, Ex.C.3, Ex. C-6 & Ex.C.8) respectively, photocopy of application dated 30.8.2007 (Ex.C.5) and photocopy of receipt (Ex.C.7).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2) of S/Sh. P.K. Kansal, Additional Superintending Engineer and Gagan Deep Singla, A.E/SDO respectively, photocopy of MCO (Ex.R.3), photocopy of memo dated 7.7.2005 (Ex.R.4), photocopy of order of Dispute Settlement Committee (Ex.R.5), photocopy of M.E Lab Report (Ex.R.6) and photocopy of notice dated 2.8.2005 (Ex.R.7).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 7. Principal argument pressed into service by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the matter in controversy has already been adjudicated by the Dispute Settlement Committee of the Board and copy of its order is Ex.R.5.<br /> <br /> 8. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant had moved an application requesting Dispute Settlement Committee to withdraw his case from there. Son of the complainant has been shown to have appeared before the Dispute Settlement Committee. Infact, his son did not put in appearance before it. He further argued that it is a fit case where direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to refund Rs.13,410/- illegally got deposited from him i.e. Rs. 5,750/- on 7.7.2005 and Rs. 7,660/- through cheque dated 2.9.2005. Impugned bill dated 25.8.2007 payable by 7.9.2007 is liable to be withdrawn according to which arrears of Rs. 17,747/- besides other excise duty/octroi charges of Rs. 4,961/- and RS. 567/- have been shown. His next submission is that meter of the complainant was changed and removed. Meter was not packed in card board box and sealed as per procedure and Tejinder Singh shown as representative of the complainant is not his representative and as such, he could not represent him in the M.E Lab on 11.4.2005. Complainant was not committing theft of energy. <br /> 9. We have considered rival arguments. Complainant himself admits that case was taken by him to the Dispute Settlement Committee of the Board. Ex.R.4 is the letter of Superintending Engineer to AEE/Sr. Executive Engineer, Distribution Circle, Rampura. A perusal of this document reveals that request was made by the consumer for decision of his case by the Dispute Settlement Committee of the Board. His request was accepted. Direction was given that 1/3rd of the disputed amount be got deposited from him. Accordingly, it was deposited by him. No-doubt, as per record, he had moved an application dated 30.8.2006 for withdrawal of his case from the Dispute Settlement Committee, but there is no evidence that such withdrawal was allowed. To the contrary, copy of the order of the Dispute Settlement Committee which is Ex.R.5 reveals that when the case was taken up for final adjudication of the matter in<br /> <br /> controversy his son was present to represent him. After hearing him and perusing the record, matter was decided by the committee of the Board. If the complainant had the intention to withdraw his case from the committee, he would not have allowed his son to defend him (complainant) before it. Fact that his son represented him before it indicates that he had the intention that his case be heard and decided by the committee. To challenge the demand, consumer has more than one remedy; one, is go before civil court; second, to go before the committee constituted by the Punjab State Electricity Board itself to resolve disputes; and thirdly, to go before the Consumer Fora. When consumer chooses one remedy and takes it to a logical end, he cannot be allowed to avail other remedy. Consumer Protection Act does not provide for any such remedy after he has chosen a remedy under a particular statute/rules or regulations. In this case, complainant opted to avail the remedy before the Dispute Settlement Committee of the Board and matter has been decided by it. He could assail the order of the Committee before the higher authorities of the Board i.e. Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee etc. In these circumstances, complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum under the Act. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of M/s. Gaurav Industries Vs. Punjab State Elecy. Board & Ors.-Appeal No. 1253 of 2001 decided on 13.4.2005. Similar view has been held in the cases of O.P Aggarwal Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer, PSEB-Appeal No. 879 of 1999 decided on 23.4.2001 and SDO/AEE, PSEB & Ors. Vs. Dilbag Singh-2002(1)CPC-233.<br /> 10. In view of our foregoing discussion, this complaint before this Fora is not maintainable. Hence, merits of the case are not being touched. Complaint is dismissed. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that complainant is at liberty to approach competent authority for getting his grievances redressed, if so advised and permitted by law. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 18.12.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br />