DISTRICT CONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No.319 of 8.11.2007 Decided on : 30.1.2008 <br /> <br /> Jagsir Singh S/o Sh. Bura Singh S/o Sh. Bhan Singh, R/o village Maluka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity board, Bhagta Bhaika, Tehsil Phul, District 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 /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Rajinder Parshad, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. R.D Goyal, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Electricity connection of 5 BHP bearing A/c No. MK-140 was obtained by the complainant. Subsequently, load was got extended to 7.5BHP, then to 10BHP and ultimately to 15 BHP. It appears that complainant has wrongly mentioned the sanctioned load in KWs in place of BHP. For getting load extended to 15 BHP, requisite amount was deposited vide receipt No. 34/560 dated 3.7.2007. Necessary entries regarding the extension of the load were made in his Pass Book. He was regularly paying the amount of the electricity bills issued from time to time. Memo No. 1338 dated 12.7.2007 was received by him from opposite party No.2. He alleges that it was issued on the baseless and false allegations that he was running electricity motor of 7.5 BHP against law and facts. Request was made by him to opposite party No. 2 to withdraw this memo as it is illegal, arbitrary and not warranted by law, but they did not accede to it. To the contrary, threat was extended to him that in case the amount is not deposited, electricity connection would be disconnected. Act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused loss to his reputation and mental tension, agony and harassment to him. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice practice on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw notice/memo dated 12.7.2007; pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for loss to his reputation, mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file it and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try it. On merits, they admit that originally electricity connection released to the complainant was with sanctioned sanction of 5 BHP. Thereafter, load was extended to 7.5 BHP, 10 BHP and ultimately to 15 BHP. They deny that complainant was making payment of the bills regularly. At present, electricity to the Agriculturists is free. Inter-alia, their plea is that connection of the complainant was checked by Additional Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement, PSEB, Bathinda on 10.7.2007. He was accompanied by Sh. Jasvir Singh, AEE. It was found that complainant was using 2 motors i.e. one of 12.5 BHP and another of 7.5 BHP. Starters of both the motors were in the same room. Motor of7.5 BHP was in joint with the same supply system of electricity from where 12.5 BHP motor was running. Checking was made in the presence of Lakha Singh S/o Mauj Singh, representative of the complainant. He had signed the checking report. On the basis of the checking, memo No. 1338 dated 12.7.2007 was issued. In this manner, complainant was running 7.5 BHP motor illegally without getting any sanction from them. He can run one motor of 15 BHP. He cannot bifurcate the load by way of using two motors. In case, the amount is not deposited, connection can be disconnected. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Jagsir Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), affidavit (Ex.C.2) of Sh. Lakha Singh, photocopies of payment receipts (Ex.C.3, Ex.C.6 & Ex.C.7), photocopy of Pass Book (Ex.C.4) and photocopy of Memo dated 12.7.2007 (Ex.C.5).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2) of S/Sh. Paramjit Singh, SDO and Jasvir Singh, AEE respectively and photocopy of checking report (Ex.R.3).<br /> 5. Learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that sanctioned load for tubewell purpose allowed to the complainant is 15 BHP. Complainant is regularly making payment regarding the electricity consumed by him. He was not committing theft of energy. In these circumstances, demand of Rs.7,020/- raised by the opposite parties through memo dated 12.7.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.5, is illegal, null and void. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 which are of the complainant and Lakha Singh respectively and Pass Book, copy of which is Ex.C.4. He further argued that checking of the electricity connection of the complainant was not done in the presence of Lakha Singh as is evident from his affidavit Ex.C.4. <br /> 6. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that connection of the complainant was checked by Sh. Ranjit Singh, Additional Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement on 10.7.2007. He was accompanied by Sh. Jasvir Singh. It was found that consumer was using 12.5 BHP motor. He had installed another motor of 7.5 BHP. The Starters of both the motors were in the same room. Motor of 7.5 BHP was in joint with the same supply system of electricity from where 12.5 BHP motor was running. Checking report was prepared in the presence of Sh. Lakha Singh. His next argument is that complainant can run one motor of 15 BHP. He cannot bifurcate the load and run more than one motor for consuming electricity without the permission of the competent authority.<br /> 7. We have considered the respective arguments. So far as the affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant is concerned, it stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Paramjit Singh, SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Bhagta Bhaika, District Bathinda. No-doubt, Lakha Singh in his affidavit Ex.C.4 has stated that no checking was made in his presence, yet he has admitted that his signatures were obtained on some papers. His plea is that his signatures were obtained on the pretext that his connection was checked and found correct. He has not mentioned the account of his electricity connection. If his electricity connection or the connection of the complainant was not checked in his presence, he could refuse to sign the checking report, copy of which is Ex.R.3, which is explained by him as paper. It appears that Lakha Singh is concealing the truth simply on account of the fact that he is co-villager of the complainant. In the case in hand, checking of the electricity connection of the complainant was done by the senior officer of the Board i.e. Additional Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement. He was accompanied by another officer i.e. Jasvir Singh. There is not an iota of evidence on the record that either Sh. Ranjit Singh or Jasvir Singh has enmity or motive to make false case regarding electricity against the complainant. Acts performed by the public servants in the discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct unless otherwise proved. Complainant has failed to bring on record evidence to make the version of the opposite parties incredible. Officers cannot be dubbed as unreliable merely on account of their official destinations and on account of the fact that they have made report against a person which does not suit him. The checking report, copy of which is Ex.R.3, stands supported with the affidavit of Sh. Jasvir Singh, AEE. Complainant did not deem it fit to cross-examine him to shatter his version in Ex.R.2. On this aspect as well, Ex.R.2 is worth placing credence. Hence, the conclusion is that it stands proved that checking of the connection of the complainant was conducted and it was found that two motors were installed i.e. one of 12.5 BHP and the other of 7.5 BHP. Starters of both of them were in the same room. Motor of 7.5 BHP was in joint with the same supply system of electricity from where 12.5 BHP motor was running. Learned counsel for the complainant failed to show any rule or regulation of the PSEB according to which sanctioned load of electricity connection for running the tubewell can be bifurcated and more than one motor can be run for using the sanctioned load. To the contrary, both the officers of the opposite parties i.e. S/Sh. Paramjit Singh and Jasvir Singh have stated in their affidavits Ex.R.1 and EX.R.2 that complainant could run one motor of 15 BHP only and that as per rules of the Board, he cannot run more motors than one by way of bifurcating the sanctioned load. Accordingly, demand of Rs. 7,020/- raised by the opposite parties through memo, copy of which is Ex.C.5, is certainly legal and valid. No deficiency in service on their part is proved. Complaint being devoid of merits 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 /> 30.01.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br />