DISTRICT CONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 77 of 10.3.2008 Decided on : 8.5.2008 <br /> <br /> Malkit Singh S/o Sh. Kirpal Singh, R/o Village Gobindpura, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, Through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala<br /> 2.S.D.O., Cantt. Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, 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 /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Hardev Singh Dhanoa, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Abhey Singla, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant is holder of electricity connection bearing A/c No. SP-492 for the purpose of running his tubewell. He has got installed 10 BHP submersible motor. He applied for another electricity connection by way of depositing the requisite security to the tune of Rs.27,500/- vide receipt dated 8.9.2007. Another bore has been dug by him at a distance of about 100 meters from the site of the tubewell which is already functioning. On 28.2.2008, memo No. 534 was received by him from opposite party No. 2 whereby demand of Rs. 56,640/- has been raised on the ground that he was committing theft of electricity. He (complainant) assails this demand as illegal, null and void and not binding upon him on the ground that the report does not prove the alleged theft; no checking was done by any official of the opposite parties on 23.2.2008 in his fields; neither he nor his representative was present at the time of alleged checking; he was not called at all; no checking report has been given to him at the time of alleged checking or alongwith the impugned memo; no show cause or opportunity has been provided to him before raising the demand and amount claimed is highly exaggerated. He further alleges that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade 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 the aforesaid demand of Rs. 56,640/-; pay him Rs.35,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,500/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainant has not come with clean hands and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. On merits, they admit that complainant has electricity connection bearing A/c No. SP-492 for the purpose of running tubewell and he has installed submersible motor of 10 BHP. He has dug another bore near this tubewell and he has applied for another connection by way of depositing Rs. 27,500/-. Inter-alia, their plea is that connection was checked by the Flying Squad on 23.2.2008. It was found that new motor was installed in the new bore at some distance from the already existing connection. He had fraudulently connected newly installed motor with the old connection and was running both the motors. Connections of Bora Singh, Surjit Singh and others were also checked on that day. Joint checking report was prepared. On its basis, provisional order of assessment has been passed. They deny that impugned memo is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant for the reasons mentioned in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Malkit Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.2), affidavit (Ex.C.1) of Sh. Hardev Singh, photocopies of payment receipts (Ex.C.3 & Ex.C.6), photocopy of letter dated 3.3.2008 (Ex.C.4), photocopy of Provisional Order of Assessment dated 28.2.2008 (Ex.C.5) and photocopy of Retail Invoice dated 26.12.2007 (Ex.C.7).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Pritpal Singh, SDO, photocopy of Checking Report (Ex.R.2), photocopy of Provisional Order of Assessment (Ex.R.3), photocopy of Calculation sheet (Ex.R.4), photocopy of letter dated 3.3.2008 (Ex.R.5) and photocopy of payment receipt (Ex.R.6).<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Apart from this, we have gone through the written arguments submitted by the complainant.<br /> 6. Allegation of the opposite parties is regarding theft of electricity. Onus is upon them to prove it. Theft is to be proved like a criminal charge. There should be cogent, convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove it. Opposite parties are alleging that the complainant was committing theft of energy as he had installed another 10 BHP motor in the new bore and had connected the same with already existing and running connection and he was using and running both the motors. For this, they are relying upon the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Pritpal Singh and copy Ex.R.2 of the checking report. Neither in the reply of the complaint nor in the affidavit of Sh. Pritpal Singh it has been made clear as to who were the officials of the Flying Squad who had checked the connection of the complainant on 23.2.2008. From affidavit Ex.R.1, it cannot be said that Sh. Pritpal Singh was heading the Flying Squad or he was member of the checking team. Checking report Ex.R.2 has not been proved by any of the official of the alleged Flying Squad by way of producing and proving his affidavit. Only the officials who were members of the party could state in which manner the alleged theft of electricity was being committed. Hence, primary evidence i.e. the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses is missing. Mere fact that copy of the checking report has been tendered into evidence ipso facto does not prove the allegation of theft of electricity.<br /> 7. Inspection report does not bear the signatures of the complainant or his representative. There is no material to show that before checking the connection of the complainant, information was given to him. Similarly, opposite parties have not proved that copy of the checking report was either supplied to the complainant personally or it was otherwise sent to him or any other opportunity to defend was afforded to him. It is well settled principle of natural justice that one should not be condemned unheard. On this aspect of the matter as well, the demand of the amount through provisional order, copy of which is Ex.R.3, is against the principles of natural justice and is also violative of statutory conditions. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations in the authorities H.S.E.B Vs. Krishan Dev-I(1994)CPJ-74, Deputy Engineer, G.E.B & Ors.-I(2004)CPJ-64 and Punjab State Electricity Board through its Sub Divisional Officer Vs. Kashmir Singh-I(2004)CPJ-65.<br /> 8. Copy of the checking report Ex.R.2 does not reveal the account number of the complainant. It is a joint report concerning four persons. Previously, report at Sr. No. 2 was regarding one Surjit Singh. After cutting, Surjit has been made Malkit. Cutting does not bear the signatures of any person. In case, complainant was using another motor of 10 BHP in the new bore at a distance of 100 meters from the already existing connection, he must have laid wire for connecting both the motors. Neither wire nor the alleged motor in the new bore has been taken into possession. No explanation has been furnished for this lapse. When the checking report does not bear the signatures of the complainant and his representative and wire has not been taken into possession, demand raised is certainly illegal. For this, reference may be made to the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Charan Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman-2006 JRC-206.<br /> 9. In view of our forgoing discussion, we are of the considered view that opposite parties have failed to establish their version of theft of electricity. Hence demand raised by them through provisional order of assessment, copy of which is Ex.C.5, is certainly illegal, null and void. Accordingly it is set aside. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 10. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In the facts and circumstances, direction serves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw the demand raised through memo No. 534 dated 28.2.2008, copy of which is Ex.C.5. Further direction which is warranted is that opposite parties should refund the amount of Rs. 27,000/- deposited by the complainant vide receipt dated 11.3.2008, copy of which is Ex.C.3, alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 11.3.2008 till payment. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused him mental tension and harassment for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> 11. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Withdraw memo No. 534 dated 28.2.2008, copy of which is Ex.C.5, as the same is illegal, null and void and arbitrary.<br /> ( ii ) Refund Rs. 27,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 11.3.2008 till payment.<br /> ( iii ) Pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14(1)(d) of the Act. <br /> ( iv ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 12. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 8.5.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br />