BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 36 of 2008 Instituted On: 08.04.2008 Date of Service: 28.04.2008 Decided On: 28.08.2008 Malkiat Singh (aged 60 years) son of Inder Singh son of Natha Singh, resident of Beant Nagar, Gali No.7,Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Moga. 3. Assistant Executive Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board,Suburban Division, Moga. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member. Present: Sh.Arun Sood, Adv.counsel for complainant. Sh.R.K.Goyal, Adv. counsel for the OPs. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Malkiat Singh 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 (herein-after referred to as Board) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.27140/- raised vide bill dated 29.03.2008 and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Malkait Singh complainant is a consumer of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.BN03/0414W installed at his residential premises having sanctioned load of 1.22 KW in the name of one Sham Lal. That the said premises where the disputed connection has been installed was purchased by the complainant from Sham Lal vide registered sale deed dated 06.06.1988. Since then the complainant has been using the said connection & paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden, he received a bill dated 29.03.2008 in which the OPs-Board demanded Rs.27140/- on account of sundry charges. That neither any prior notice of inclusion of the impugned demand in the consumption bill has been received by him nor any reason has been assigned by the OPs-Board. That the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board time and again and requested to withdraw the impugned amount, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.50000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.R.K.Goyal Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint and that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands. On merits, it was averred that first of all, the complainant is not a consumer under the Act because the disputed connection has been installed in the name of one Sham Lal. Moreover, the complainant has not filed any application for transfer of the said connection in his name. In fact, on 02.02.2008 Sh.R.K.Joshi, AAE South Sub Division, Moga checked the residential premises of the complainant in his presence and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by connecting electric wire with the joint in a portion of his house after by-passing the electricity. That the checking was conducted in presence of complainant, who signed the checking report after admitting its contents as correct. Thereafter, memo no. 749 dated 27.3.2008 was issued to Sham Lal consumer demanding Rs.27140/- on account of theft of energy, but the complainant did not pay the same. Earlier an amount of Rs.27140/- was claimed vide sundry number 267/22/R-56, but later on after adjusting Rs.9173/- (which were deposited by the consumer), the revised demand of Rs.17977/- has been raised under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. Thus, the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover the same. 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. 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, bills Ex.A2 to Ex.A10, copy of sale deed Ex.A11 and closed his evidence. 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar, Senior XEN and Sh. R.K.Joshi, copy of notice Ex.R2, copy of report Ex.R3, copy of circular Ex.R4 and closed their evidence. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Arun Sood ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.R.K.Goyal ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 7. Sh.Arun Sood ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.27140/- raised vide bill dated 29.03.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in theft of energy. 8. It is contended by Sh.R.K.Goyal ld.counsel for the OPs-Board that the present complaint is not maintainable because the electric connection is in the name of Sham Lal has some force. Admittedly, the electric connection in question was installed in the name of one Sham Lal who sold the same property/premises alongwith electric connection in question to Malkiat Singh complainant vide registered sale deed dated 06.06.1988. Even after a lapse of more than 20 years, Malkiat Singh complainant has failed to get transferred the electric connection in question in his name for the reasons best known to him. Further, there is not an iota of evidence on record if the complainant had filed any application before OPs-Board for transfer of the said connection in his name. In this regard, section 2 (1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down that a consumer means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purposes. So Makiat Singh complainant has failed to prove that by using the connection in question, he becomes a consumer of the OPs-Board. 9. Sh.R.K.Goyal ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that in fact, on 02.02.2008 Sh.R.K.Joshi, AAE South Sub Division, Moga checked the residential premises of the complainant in his presence and found the consumer stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by connecting electric wire with the joint in a portion of his house after by-passing the electricity. That the checking was conducted in presence of complainant, who signed the checking report after admitting its contents as correct. Thereafter, memo no. 749 dated 27.3.2008 was issued to Sham Lal consumer demanding Rs.27140/- on account of theft of energy, but the complainant did not pay the same. Earlier an amount of Rs.27140/- was claimed vide sundry number 267/22/R-56, but later on after adjusting Rs.9173/- (which were deposited by the consumer), the revised demand of Rs.17977/- has been raised under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has full force. Admittedly, the premises of the complainant was checked on 02.02.2008 by Sh.R.K.Joshi, AAE, South Sub Division, Moga who found him committing theft of energy in the aforesaid manners. The aforesaid charges of theft have been proved from the checking report Ex.R3. To further strengthen the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the OPs-Board have produced joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar, Senior XEN and Sh. R.K.Joshi checking officer, copy of notice Ex.R2, copy of report Ex.R3, copy of circular Ex.R4, 10. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not stealing the electricity except his own affidavit Ex.A1. There is no corroboration to his affidavit that he was not stealing the electricity by illegal means and using the excess load. Moreover, he has reason to give false affidavit in order to save himself from the consequences of being caught red handed while stealing the electricity by illegal means. Thus, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and we discard the same. 11. Further, the checking party had acted in accordance with rules and regulations issued by PSEB from time to time and in discharge of their official duties. They were supposed to do all their acts bonafidely and in good faith and without any malice or motive. The complainant has not alleged any ill-will or animus against them. They have no reason to make a wrong report against him. In view of these circumstances, we hold that on 02.02.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means and using the excess load. 12. Moreover, in case of fraudulent abstraction of energy this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint made by the complainant. On this point rulings cited IV (2003) Consumer Protection Judgements-376 South West Distribution Co.Ltd (BSES) Versus Inder Pal Thapar of Delhi State Commission, II (2004) Consumer Protection Judgements- 20 Puran Chand versus B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Limited & Anr. of Honble Delhi State Commission and 2006(3) The Punjab Law Reporter page 14 titled as Delhi Vidyut Board Vs.Devindra Singh and another of Delhi High Court are quite applicable to the facts of the present case. It has been held that in such circumstances the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act and the dispute between the parties can not be said to be a consumer dispute. Similar view was held by Honble Delhi State Commission in III (2003) Consumer Protection Judgements-66 Delhi Vidyut Board Versus D.N.Shukla. 13 . In view of aforesaid circumstances, we hold that the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means. Thus, the impugned demand of Rs.27140/- made from the complainant on account of theft of energy by the OPs-Board was quite legal and valid and as per rules and instructions of the PSEB. The complainant has failed to prove if there was any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs-Board. 14. For arguments sake, if it is presumed that the complaint is maintainable even then the impugned demand is legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. To prove the aforesaid contentions, the OPs-Board has produced joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar, Senior XEN and Sh. R.K.Joshi, copy of notice Ex.R2, copy of report Ex.R3, copy of circular Ex.R4. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and other documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A11. 15. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the 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. (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla) Member Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:28.08.2008.
