DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.160 of 14.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 16.8.2007 <br /> <br /> Harinder Singh S/o Sh. Rupinder Singh, R/o Village Dialpura Mirza, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant <br /> Versus <br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Elecy. Board, Sub Division Bhagta Bhai Ka, 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. Harpal Singh Khara, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to correct his bill dated 3.6.2007 and pay Rs. 10,000/- as damages for mental and physical tension, 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. DP/42/1029 which has been installed at his premises. The house where it has been installed was lying vacant since 1992. He was attacked by the Militants. Due to fear of further attack, he had left this house. Later-on, Darshan Kaur employee of the opposite parties had started living in it. She lived in this house for sufficient long time. When she vacated this house, it was locked by him. Thereafter, he started living in it in 2006. Bill dated 3.6.2007 for Rs. 27,060/- payable on or before 18.6.2007 was received by him. In this bill, a sum of Rs. 22,116/- has been shown as arrears. He assails this amount of Rs. 22,116/- as illegal, against law and facts on the grounds that status of the meter has been shown as 'O' which means okay and he did not commit theft of electricity. Opposite parties have not mentioned the period for which the arrears have been shown. House was lying locked for sufficient long time and he was not living in it and as such, the consumption of electricity did not arise. Request was made by him to opposite party No.2 to correct the bill which was not acceded to. Opposite parties are threatening to recover the amount illegally and forcibly by using coercive methods. In case, opposite parties succeeded in disconnecting the connection, he would suffer irreparable loss. <br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has got no locus-standi and cause of action; he has not approached this Forum with clean hands; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complaint is false and frivolous and complainant is not consumer. Inter-alia, their plea is that connection was checked by the officials of the Board on 30.4.2005. He was found consuming electricity by stopping the meter. MCD seals were broken. He was using the connected load of 4.356 Kws instead of sanctioned load of 0.96 KW. In this manner, he was consuming electricity by unauthorised means. Checking report was prepared at the spot.<br /> <br /> Memo no. 1004 dated 12.5.2005 asking him to make payment of Rs. 7,412/- for theft of energy was issued. Account of the connection holder was checked by the Audit Party. It was found that demand was raised only for theft of energy and not for excess load which he was found using. As per remarks made by the Audit Team, complainant was liable to pay Rs. 13,657/- which included Rs. 7,412/- towards theft of energy and Rs. 6,245/- towards excess load. Since, 4/2006 connection holder did not pay the consumption charges. Accordingly, amount of Rs. 22,116/- which included theft of energy, excess load and consumption charges since 4/2006 was added under the head of arrears in bill of 6/2007. Demand is legal and valid. Complainant is liable to pay this amount as it is legally recoverable. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Harinder Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1) and the bills (Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on the affidait (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Jasvir Singh,SDO, photocopy of checking report dated 30.4.2005 (Ex.R.2), photocopy of memo dated 12.5.2005 (Ex.R.3), photocopy of audit report (Ex.R.4), photocopies of ledgers (Ex.R.5 & Ex.R.6) and photocopy of detail of amount (Ex.R.7)<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record. <br /> 7. Mr. Khara, learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that demand of Rs. 22,116/- by way of showing it in the column of arrears is illegal, null and void as complainant was not committing theft of energy. He had left his house due to fear of attack from the Militants. Darshan Kaur employee of the opposite parties was living in the house for sufficient long time. After she vacated it, complainant had started living in it in the year, 2006. Status<br /> <br /> of the meter in the impugned bill (Ex.C.2) is 'O' which means okay. To strengthen his arguments, reliance is placed on the affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant.<br /> 8. Mr. Nayyar, learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments by submitting that amount of Rs. 22,116/- shown in the column of arrears in the impugned bill Ex.C.2 is genuine as MCB seals of the meter were found broken by the checking party on 30.4.2005. Meter was found stopped and he was taking direct supply. Apart from this, sanctioned load of the complainant was 0.96 KW, whereas connected load was 4.356 Kws. Accordingly, amount of Rs. 13,657/- became due towards theft of energy and excess load. Apart from this, complainant was to pay consumption charges from 4/2006 onwards. In this manner, total amount due towards him was Rs. 22,116/- which has been shown in the column of arrears in the bill dated 3.6.2007 and that this amount is legally recoverable.<br /> 9. We have considered respective arguments. Admittedly, electricity connection is in the name of the complainant. As per his version, Darshan Kaur employee of the opposite parties started living in the house where this connection has been installed and he continued living in it for sufficient long time and that he started living in it in the year, 2006. In this manner, there is no doubt about the fact that he continued to be the connection holder of this connection since the day it was installed. It is nowhere his case that electricity connection was got installed by Darshan Kaur in her name. Even if complainant allowed Darshan Kaur to live in this house or otherwise she came in possession of it, he is not absolved from his liability to pay the dues of the Electricity Board. Version of the opposite parties regarding the checking of this electricity connection on 30.4.2005 is fortified from the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Jasvir Singh, SDO. He and other officials had checked the connection on 30.4.2005.<br /> <br /> Checking report, copy of which is Ex.R.2, was prepared. Connection holder was found taking the supply by unathorised means. MCB seal was found<br /> broken and meter was lying stopped. Still direct supply of electricity was being taken. Against sanctioned load of 0.96 KW, connected load was found 4.356 Kws. Consumer/his representative refused to sign the checking report. Affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant is amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex.R.1. There is not an iota of evidence that Sh. Jasvir Singh has enmity or motive to submit affidavit against the complainant. All the official acts performed by the public servants in the discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct unless other proved. There is no evidence on the basis of which version of the opposite parties and the affidavit Ex.R.1 can be thrown to the winds. Accordingly, it is worth placing credence. Memo No. 1004 dated 12.5.2005 was issued to the complainant raising demand of Rs. 7,412/- for theft of energy. This amount was not deposited. Audit Party of the Electricity Board raised objection that amount for excess load to the tune of Rs. 6,245/- has not been charged. Copy of the report is Ex.R.4. As per this report, recoverable amount for theft of energy and excess load is Rs. 13,657/-. Details of this amount have also been submitted by the parties as Ex.R.7. Besides this, consumption charges from 4/2006 onwards were not deposited before issuance of the bill dated 3.6.2007. Remaining amount out of Rs. 22,116/- is for consumption charges since 4/2006 onwards. As per copies of the ledger Ex.R.5 & Ex.R.6, amount has swelled to Rs.27,510/-. In these circumstances, no fault can be found in the demand of Rs. 22,116/- raised by the opposite parties by way of showing it in the column of arrears in the bill dated 3.6.2007. Complainant is liable to pay this amount alongwith other charges for consumption. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is not proved.<br /> 10. In the premises written above, complaint is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed with costs of Rs.500/-. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 16.8.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />