BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 60

Date of Institution : 5.3.2010

Date of Decision : 13.9.2010

Mukesh Kumar aged about 31 years S/o Banwari Lal resident of Street No. 5 (R), 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. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for charging the amount of Rs. 12,687/- vide letter No. 3666 dated 8.2.2010 issued to the complainant pertaining to Account No. RB 83/0355 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. RB 83/0355 installed in the house of Amarinder Pal Singh who is residing outside India. The complainant is using the connection as tenant and paying the bills. He received letter No. 3666 dated 8.2.2010 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which the demand of Rs. 12,687/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking dated 1.2.2010 by Sh. Shawinder Singh MT Faridkot on account of theft of energy. No copy of the alleged checking report has ever been supplied to the complainant at any point of time not even with the letter of demand inspite of the fact note regarding attachment of copy is given on the checking report. The meter of the complainant was removed by the employees of the opposite parties in the last week of January, 2010 and the same was installed on the pole outside the premises of the complainant. After 3/4 days the employees of the opposite parties again removed the meter from the pole and installed inside the premises of the complainant. On receipt of above mentioned letter the wife of the complainant submitted application to SE Op Circle, Faridkot with the copy to opposite party No. 2 on dated 16.2.2010 and narrated the whole story but without giving any reply to the representation of the wife of the complainant the employees of the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant and 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 8.3.2010 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 does not fall under the definition of consumer, so the present complaint is not maintainable. There is no privity of contract with the present complainant nor does he fulfill the requirements of consumer as given in the Act. So, he has no right to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the present electricity connection is working in the name of Amarinder Pal Singh. It is also admitted that the bill has been sent in the name of Amrinder Pal Singh and the amount has been called upon to be deposited on the basis of the checking report by Shivtar Singh and his team. The connection was checked by Shivtar Singh and his team on 1.2.2010 and during checking it was found that the meter had been tampered with. The seals were tampered and had been rejoined. Body of meter was also tampered which was visible with naked eye. The load was also checked and the detail checking was done in the presence of the complainant and other members as they were residing in the premises as tenants, but they refused to sign the checking report. The express note to that effect was also given in the checking report. The copy was also given to them. In this way, the theft was being committed of the electricity of the opposite parties. Thereafter, the present notice was served upon the complainant with the request to deposit the amount, but he did not deposit the amount with the opposite parties. The amount has been calculated as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. 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. 3666 Ex.C-2, copies of application dated 16.2.2010 Ex.C-3, copy of bill dated 29.8.2009 Ex.C-4 and evidence of the complainant was closed by order of this Forum vide order dated 5.7.2010.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Prit Pal Singh Sandhu SDO PSPC, City Sub Division, Faridkot Ex.R-1, affidavit of Shivtar Singh Ex.R-2, checking report Ex.R-3 and evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order of this Forum vide order dated 26.8.2010.

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 action of the opposite parties for charging Rs. 12,687/- to his account vide letter dated 8.2.2010 Ex.C-2 allegedly on the ground of theft based on checking report dated 1.2.2010 Ex.R-3 is illegal and unlawful. As a matter of fact, alleged checking has never been made at any point of time. No copy of alleged checking report was even supplied. The alleged checking is also unreliable having been made by an unauthorized official of the opposite parties in the rank of JE Installation. Representation Ex.C-3 made by the complainant to the opposite parties for inspection of his electricity meter was not taken note of nor considered. Otherwise also, physical facts recorded in the checking report Ex.R-2 by themselves are not conclusive proof of theft of energy.

9. Learned counsel for opposite parties however countered the aforesaid allegations on the ground that complainant is not consumer and alleged representation Ex.C-3 was made by one Sunita Rani. Connection is in the name of Amrinder Pal Singh. Complainant has not shown or proved as to how he is connected with said Amrinder Pal Singh or Sunita Rani. Further, checking was made prior to the said representation and report in this connection Ex.R-3 stands proved by way of affidavit of the concerned officials. It is further argued that the checking was made in the presence of the complainant and other members as they were residing in the said premises as tenants but they refused to sign the checking report. A note to this effect was also given in the checking report itself.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant however submitted in rebuttal that complainant being tenant is beneficiary of the services hired by the landlord and as such is consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, complaint filed by him is well maintainable. In this connection, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another Versus Hardev Singh and another reported as 1998 (1) CLT-399. He further argued that representation was received by the opposite parties but no ME Lab checking was got conducted to confirm the allegations of theft of energy by the complainant.

11. We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. There is no denial of the fact that alleged checking on the basis of which demand in question has been raised is made by JE Installation who is not authorized to check the electric connection like the one pertaining to the complainant. However, such inspection cannot be thrown overboard and discarded merely on this ground. The opposite parties are required to make out a case and prove their stand by leading cogent and convincing evidence. However, opposite parties have failed to do so, so far as the present case is concerned. Evidently, checking report Ex.R-3 is not signed by either the complainant or any member of his family. At the relevant place where signatures of the consumer's are obtained remarks have been given that tenants putting up in the premises in question was present but they refused to sign the checking report. No name or description of such tenants has been given. No procedure even was followed by pasting a notice on the premises qua checking in question nor any notice was sent to the consumer by registered post as contemplated under Clause 37.1 (f) of The Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters), Regulations, 2007. Meter testing too was avoided by the opposite parties despite representation filed by the wife of the consumer Sunita Rani which was also received in the office of the opposite parties as is evident from the writing/marking in the margin thereof. Actual meter too was not produced in the Forum for confirmation of the remarks given in the checking report Ex.R-3. Therefore, no cogent, reliable and convincing evidence is forthcoming in this case to prove theft of energy by the complainant by way of tampering the meter as alleged.

In para 1 of the complaint there are specific allegations that electric connection under Account number in question stands installed in the house of Amrinder Pal Singh who is residing outside India. Complainant is using the connection as tenant and paying the bills. In the written statement status of the complainant as tenant has not been specifically denied. The only allegation on the point in this respect is that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and as such have no right to file the present complaint. In Hardev Singh case supra relied upon by the counsel for the complainant it was held that tenant being beneficiary of the services hired by the landlord is consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and as such is entitled to file the complaint. By tacit admission of the complainant being tenant in the absence of any specific objection as to his such status in reply to para No. 1 of the complaint as also the fact that it is the complainant who has been making payment of the bills, in our considered opinion complainant is consumer being beneficiary of the services hired by the landlord Amrinder Pal Singh and as such is entitled to file the present complaint.

12. In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 12,687/- charged by them vide letter No. 3666 dated 8.2.2010 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. 12,687/- vide letter No. 3666 dated 8.2.2010 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: 13.9.2010

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