DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> <br /> C.C. No. 288 of 15.10.2007<br /> Decided on : 17.12.2007<br /> <br /> Karamjit Kaur W/o Sh. Darshan Ram S/o Sh. Jagdish Ram, R/o House No. LIG 1082, Model Town, 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, Civil Lines Sub Division, Punjab State Elecy. Board, 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. Complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. B-44/0840 installed at her house since long. She is paying electricity consumption bills regularly. Nothing is outstanding against her. About one year ago, opposite parties had shifted the meter and have installed it at a distance of 200 yards from her house. The amount of each of the consumption bills which were received by her never exceeded Rs. 300/-. Since the meter has been shifted, theft of electricity is being committed by some unknown persons by connecting wire in the main supply wire on account of which she is receiving highly exaggerated bills. It is on account of the fact that someone is committing theft from the union. In the bill dated 17.3.2007, consumption has been shown to be of 1067 units for the period for which this bill has been issued. She and her family members were out of station for one month. She made oral as well as written complaints to the officials of the opposite parties. They assured that there would be no joint in the service cable from the site of the meter upto her residence and further that they would adjust the excess amount in the future bills. An application dated 11.4.2007 was also moved by her. No relief has been given to her. Hence, there is deficiency in service on their part. In these circumstances, she has preferred this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to shift the meter from the present place and to instal it inside or outside her house; hold opposite parties responsible for theft of energy which has been committed by some other person; correct the joints by way of putting new cable; quash bills dated 17.3.2007 & 16.9.2007 and pay Rs. 10,000/- for mental tension, harassment and botheration, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant does not have any cause of action to file it; she has not approached this Forum with clean hands; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; matter is liable to be referred to Dispute Settlement Committee of the Punjab State Electricity Board; complaint is false and frivolous and complainant is not consumer. On merits, they do not deny the fact that complainant is holder of electricity connection bearing A/c No. B-44/0840. According to them, meter has been installed outside the premises of the complainant under the rules. They deny that theft of electricity is committed by any person. According to them, there is no joint in the cable/wire. Bills were sent as per actual consumption. They do not admit that complainant made any complaint regarding the theft from her meter. Bill dated 17.3.2007 was issued for consumption of 1067 units which is as per actual consumption. No excess amount has been charged. They deny remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 3. In support of her allegations and averments in the complaint, Karamjit Kaur complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2), photocopies of bills (Ex.C.3 to Ex.C.6), photocopies of receipts (Ex.C.7 & Ex.C.8), photocopy of application dated 11.4.2007 (Ex.C.9), photocopy of bill (Ex.C.10) and photographs (Ex.C.11 to Ex.C.13).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. R.K. Singla, A.E.E and consumption data (Ex.R.2).<br /> 5. Copies of the impugned bills dated 17.3.2007 and 16.9.2007 are Ex.C.5 and Ex.C.4 respectively. As per Ex.C.5, consumption is of 1067 units, whereas in the bill dated 16.9.2007 it has been recorded as 716 units. Consumption data placed on record by the opposite parties is Ex.R.2. Complainants allege that since the meter has been shifted and installed at a distance of 200 yards from her house, theft is being committed by some unknown persons by way of connecting wire in the main supply line. It is on account of this fact that she has received the impugned bills which are inflated. This contention of the complainant regarding the bills in question cannot be accepted. She has not named any person who was committing theft of energy from the wire which is coming from her meter to her house. She does not allege any defect in the meter itself. Her allegation regarding the theft of energy has not gone beyond the stage of allegation. Her affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 on this aspect of the matter stand amply bracketed with the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. R.K. Singla, A.E.E. Hence, her version that consumption has increased due to theft of energy by some persons from the wire of the meter which is coming from the meter to her house, cannot be accepted. Mere fact that consumption during the period mentioned in the impugned bills is somewhat more than the previous and subsequent period is itself no ground to give weight to her story. In the circumstances, prayer of the complainant that opposite parties be held responsible for theft of electric energy appears unfounded and baseless and no ground is made out for quashing the bills dated 17.3.2007 and 16.9.2007. <br /> 6. Complainant seeks the shifting of the meter from the present place and its installation inside or outside her house. Meters are to be installed by the opposite parties as per rules and regulations of the Board. Complainant is to stand on her own legs. Learned counsel for the complainant could not show us any rule or regulation according to which meter cannot be installed at a distance of 200 yards from the house of a consumer and that it must be installed inside or outside his/her house. Fact that meter of the complainant has been installed at a distance of 200 yards from her house itself does not establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, particularly when there is no breach of legal obligation on their part in installing it at the place where it has been installed. Complainant has placed on record photographs Ex.C.11 to Ex.C.13 for showing the condition of cable/wire supplying electricity to her house. She had also moved an application to opposite party No. 2 and copy of the same is Ex.C.9. Through this application, request was made by her that there is joint in the cable/wire and new wire in its place be laid. Despite this, nothing has been done. A perusal of Ex.C.12 & Ex.C.13 also reveal that cable/wire is not intact. Possibility of theft from the joint in the wire cannot be ruled out although complainant has not proved the theft of energy as discussed above It is the duty of the opposite parties to instal jointless cable/wire so that there may not be theft of energy. Since opposite parties have not laid jointless cable/wire from the meter to the house of the complainant, there is deficiency in service on their part on this score.<br /> 7. 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 to put jointless cable/wire from the meter recording her consumption of electricity upto her house. She is also craving for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental tension, harassment and botheration. No case is made out for compensation as she has failed to establish theft of energy and the amount of the bills in question as illegal. <br /> 8. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 9. In the result, complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Replace the present wire/cable supplying electricity to the house of the complainant from the meter upto her house with jointless wire/cable.<br /> ( ii ) Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy. <br /> 10. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 17.12.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br />