<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 76 of 2008.<br /> Instituted On: 26.06.2008.<br /> Date of Service: 17.07.2008.<br /> Decided On: 26.09.2008.<br /> <br /> Kulwant Kaur, (aged 52 years) Wife of Sh.Darshan Singh, resident of Ward No.25, Street No.17, Preet Nagar, Moga.<br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban Division, Near Mangal Dass Da Dera, Akalsar Road, Moga.<br /> 3. Sr.XEN, Punjab State Electricity Board, City Division, G.T.Road, Moga. <br /> <br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Rajesh Sood, Advocate counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.Ajay Gulati, Advocate counsel for the OPs.<br /> <br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Smt.Kulwant Kaur complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary and others-opposite parties directing them to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.10531/- raised vide bill dated 9.6.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Smt.Kulwant Kaur, complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Parties-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.PB65/1130N with sanctioned load of 0.78 KW. That the complainant got installed the electric meter in question in the month of October 2007, but upto May 2008 the OPs-Board did not send her the consumption bill. Now the complainant received a bill dated 9.6.2008 for Rs.24710/- in which Rs.465/- on account of consumption of 136 units for the period 15.3.2008 to 15.5.2008 and Rs.23895/- on account of arrears has been charged. However, later on the OPs-Board reduced the impugned amount upto the extent of Rs.10531/-. But the complainant did not consume the electricity to that extent. That the aforesaid demand raised by OPs-Board is illegal, null, void ultravires and is liable to set aside. That neither any notice before adding the said amount has been issued to her nor any opportunity for personnel hearing before adding the aforesaid illegal amount has been provided. Thus, the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to the complainant for which she has claimed Rs.20000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.Ajay Gulati, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; that the complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and that the matter in dispute should have been referred to Dispute Settlement Committee as per the prescribed law. On merits, it was averred that actually on 1.12.2007 Sh.Amrik Singh, JE PSEB, Sub Division, Moga checked the electric connection in question and found her using the supply for karyana shop i.e. for commercial purpose and thus, the complainant was violating the terms and conditions of the supply of electricity. The checking was conducted in presence of the complainant who duly signed the checking report. It is important to mention here that since the date of installation of new meter at the premises of the complainant, she did not deposit the consumption bills i.e. for the months of 12/2007, 2/2008, 4/2008 and 6/2008. Thus, the arrears of consumption during that period has also been added in the impugned memo dated 6.2.2008 for Rs.20618/-, but later on it was rectified upto the extent of Rs.6406/-, to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.A1, copy of bill Ex.A2, copy of receipt Ex.A3 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Addl.S.E. and Sh.R.K.Joshi, SDO Ex.R1, copy of checking report Ex.R2, copy of notice Ex.R3, copy of consumption data Ex.R4, copy of notice Ex.R5 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Rajesh Sood ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.Ajay Gulati ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.Ajay Gulati ld. counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable because she has not availed of the first available remedy of presenting her case before the Dispute Settlement Committee set up by the PSEB. This contention of the ld. counsel for the OPs-Board has no merit. The provisions of Section 3 of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being enforced and hence, the complaint is maintainable. The ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has also failed to point out any contrary view taken in any authority by our own Hon’ble State Commission or Hon’ble National Commission, barring the complainant to file complaint under section 12 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we, therefore, hold that the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable.<br /> 8. Sh.Rajesh Sood, ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.10531/- raised vide bill dated 09.06.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in ‘theft of energy’ nor ever used excess load. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has some force. Admittedly, the checking report Ex.R2 shows that at the time of checking on 1.12.2007, the meter of the complainant was flickering on putting load, but the OPs-Board did not issue any notice to him regarding the ‘theft of energy’. When no notice or demand has been raised by the OPs-Board on account of ‘theft of energy’, the aforesaid contention raised by ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit.<br /> 9. So far as, the checking report relating to the fact that the complainant was using electric supply to his shop on converting the DS connection into NRS is concerned, the same stands proved from the checking report Ex.R2 which is duly signed by the complainant. Thus, it shows that the complainant was using the electricity for commercial purpose on converting the DS connection into NRS at the time of checking. This fact stands corroborated from the signatures of complainant in Punjabi on checking report Ex.R2 that she was using the electricity for NRS purpose. The OPs-Board themselves had reduced the amount from Rs.10531/- to Rs.6406/- and has issued the revised demand Ex.R5 to the complainant to pay Rs.6406/- on this account. Thus, the aforesaid demand of Rs.6406/- raised by the OPs-Board is quite legal and valid to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. <br /> 10. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. The demand of Rs.10531/- raised by the OPs-Board vide bill dated 9.6.2008 is set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.6406/- raised vide revised memo no.1759 dated 23.7.2008 on account of using the electricity by the complainant for commercial purpose. Keeping in view the aforesaid peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order shall be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room. <br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:26.09.2008.<br /> hrg*<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />