BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 68

Date of Institution : 15.3.2010

Date of Decision : 14.9.2010

Karanbir Singh aged about 25 years S/o Nirmaljit Singh, resident of Street No. 11, Dogar Basti, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, PSEB, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) City Subdivision, PSEB, Faridkot.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.

Sh. B.B. Khurana counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for charging the amount of Rs. 30,249/- vide letter No. 3556 dated 24.12.2009 issued to the complainant pertaining to Account No. DB 66/0328 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said notice and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is consumer of the opposite parties using domestic electric connection Account No. DB 66/0328 running in the premises owned by mother of the complainant. Complainant is using the electricity as beneficiary of the connection and paying the bills, so the complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. He received letter No. 3556 dated 24.12.2009 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which the demand of Rs. 30,249/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking dated 22.12.2009 by JE Installation, Faridkot on account of theft of energy. No copy of alleged checking report dated 22.12.2009 has ever been supplied to the complainant at any point of time not even with the letter of demand in spite of the fact that note regarding attachment of copy is given on the checking report. The complainant never committed any theft of electricity as alleged in the letter No. 3556 dated 24.12.2009. The complainant is using the electricity through the meter and paying the bills as per consumption of the meter. The connected load at the premises of the complainant is very much less than the sanctioned load as the complainant got sanctioned the load as per old formula of the PSEB but now the formula to calculate the load has been changed. Moreover, the complainant has installed CFL tubes of 10/15 Watts at his premises as per the guidelines of the PSEB to save the electricity. Connected load of the complainant was never checked by any official of the PSEB. On receipt of letter No. 3556 dated 24.12.2009 complainant immediately visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and enquired about the amount demanded by the opposite party. The complainant requested the opposite party No. 2 to supply the copy of alleged checking report but no copy of the alleged checking report was supplied to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17.3.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant is suppressing the true facts from this Forum that his meter connection was checked by JE Installation Shivtar Singh of PSEB, Faridkot on 22.12.2009. The complainant was indulging in theft of energy by using artificial and unauthorized means by making a loop/kundi connection, thus by passing the meter. The complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as the connection is in the name of some Pritam Singh whereas the complaint is being filed by one Karanbir Singh. Moreover, the premises in which the connection in question has been installed belongs to his mother. On merits, it was alleged among other things that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as the connection is not in the name of complainant. It is admitted that the opposite parties have issued letter No. 3556 dated 24.12.2009 raising demand of Rs. 30,249/- as sundry charges on the basis of checking done by MI Shivtar Singh on 22.12.2009. On checking, the complainant was found committing theft of energy by bypassing the meter. A checking report No. FDK 100/19 dated 22.12.2009 was prepared on the spot in the presence of the complainant and the complainant endorsed it by putting his signatures on it voluntarily without any protest or duress. A copy of he checking report was delivered to the complainant on the spot. On checking, it was found on the spot that the complainant had bypassed the meter by making a loop/kundi by connecting the incoming supply line of the meter terminal block and then connecting it to the output terminal block supply point of the meter. He was caught red handed while committing theft of energy by bypassing the meter by shunting it out. So, this has been declared a case of theft of energy. Full detail and calculations have been provided in the notice No. 3556 dated 24.12.2009. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, memo No. 3556 Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 16.2.2009 Ex.C-3, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-4, receipt No. 583 Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Prit Pal Singh Sandhu Ex.R-1, checking report dated 22.12.2009 Ex.R-2, memo No. 3556 Ex.R-3, affidavit of Shivtar Singh Ex.R-4, loop Ex.R-5 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the action of opposite parties for charging Rs. 30,249/- vide letter dated 24.12.2009 Ex.C-2 to the complainant account allegedly on the ground of theft based on checking report dated 22.12.2009 Ex.R-2 is illegal and unlawful. As a matter of fact, checking report is unreliable having been made by JE Installation who is not authorized for the purpose of checking as per the Punjab Government Notification issued under Section 135 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Wire which is allegedly used as a loop to abstract energy was not sealed on its seizure and is manipulated. No connected load was checked nor stated in the checking report which proves that in fact no checking was made and the report was fabricated.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that the complainant is not the consumer. The connection is in the name of one Pritam Singh. There is no pleadings as to how the complainant is related to said Pritam Singh. Further, the checking report is proved on record by way of duly sworn affidavit of concerned officials. There was no question of checking the connected load as it was a case of direct abstraction of energy. Moreover, no protest or representation was filed to the competent authority before having recourse to the Forum against the demand. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10. Having considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record we are of the opinion that theft of energy by way of illegal means i.e by using loop/wire to the incoming side of the meter terminal block and then bypassing the meter and reconnecting it to the output point of the meter terminal block which was giving supply to the house of the complainant is not proved. No seizure memo of wire was prepared. It was produced without any sealed memo in ordinary envelope Ex.R-5. It is noted that there is no pleadings even as to seizure of the loop/wire even in the relevant paras 3 and 4 of the written statement. Since checking in this case is claimed to have been made by an unauthorized official in the rank of JE Installation so sufficient and convincing material was sine qua non to prove theft in this case which in our view is not forthcoming. Therefore, the allegations of theft is proved to be false. In so far as the question of complainant having not been proved to be consumer is concerned in our view being user, the complaint filed by him is well maintainable. In the checking report Ex.R-2 and other documents address of Pritam Singh consumer is given as C/o Karanbir Singh son of Nirmaljit Singh, Dogar Basti, Main Road, Gali No. 11, Faridkot which is sufficient to convey that complainant is residing in the premises where the electric meter stands installed and he is not only using the electric supply through that meter but also paying the bills in regard to the consumption thereunder.

11. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid observations and findings, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 30,249/- charged by them vide letter No. 3556 dated 24.12.2009 from the complainant alongwith all the surcharges, if any, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Any amount, if already deposited by the complainant with regard to above mentioned charges of Rs. 30,249/- vide letter No. 3556 dated 24.12.2009 with the opposite parties, be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in his next bills. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 14.9.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)