BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : CC/10/3

Date of Institution : 7.1.2010

Date of Decision : 17.8.2010

Rajinder Singh aged about 39 years s/o Jagroop Singh resident of Vill. Jhakhar Wala, Tehsil Jaito District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, PSEB, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS), Subdivision, PSEB, Bajakhana.

...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. 19,302/- as sundry charges in the bill issued on 14.9.2009 to the complainant in respect of Account No. JH 35/0602 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said sundry charges 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 having a domestic electric connection bearing Account No. JH 35/0602. The complainant belongs to SC category hence 200 units per month free supply is being given by the PSEB as per tariff instructions of the PSEB. He received bill issued on 14.9.2009 in which sundry charges of Rs. 19,302/- have been charged illegally. As per instructions of the Board no such amount is to be charged in the bill through sundry and only separate bill is to be rendered. No detail of the amount charged was ever furnished to the complainant. On receipt of said bill he immediately visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and enquired about the charges levied through sundry and it was told to the complainant that amount has been charged due to theft of electricity. The meter of the complainant was burnt in the month of 8/2007 and he immediately informed the opposite party No. 2 about the burnt meter. The meter was burnt due to breakdown of 11 KV lines of the PSEB. JE of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and found the meter burnt due to breakdown of 11 KV Line. After that, official of the opposite party gave direct supply to the complainant and started charging bills as per burnt meter of the complainant. Meter of the complainant changed in the month of February, 2009. Till February, 2009 supply was given by the opposite party directly due to burnt meter. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 and requested them to withdraw the illegal charges but they flatly refused to do so 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 8.1.2010 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 as such the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is admitted that the present bill has been sent to the complainant wherein a sum of Rs. 19,302/- has been charged in sundry column. The present connection was checked by Sh. K.D. Kumar the then SDO PSEB Bargari on 30.8.2008 in the presence of the complainant and during checking it was found that the complainant was committing theft of energy directly. The checking was done in the presence of the complainant but he refused to sign the same. Checking report was prepared at the spot and the copy of the same was given to the complainant. Thereafter, one notice dated 12.9.2008 was served upon the complainant with the request to deposit the amount but inspite of this fact the complainant did not deposit the present amount, so the present amount has been charged in the present bill. The complainant never deposited the meter burnt cost. It is denied that the officials of the opposite parties gave direct supply to the complainant. The said amount has been charged as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties. 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, copy of bill dated 14.9.2009 Ex.C-2, application dated 13.9.2007 Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence checking report Ex.R-1, notice dated 12.9.2009 Ex.R-2, affidavits of Amarjit Singh SDO Ex.R-3 & Ex.R-4, affidavit of K.D. Kumar SDO PSPC, Bargari Ex.R-5 and evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order of this Forum vide order dated 21.7.2010.

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 Rs. 19,302/- charged as sundry charges in the bill dated 14.9.2009 Ex.C-2 on alleged checking dated 30.8.2008 Ex.R-1 have been illegally claimed. As a matter of fact, meter of the complainant was burnt due to breakdown of 11 KV line of PSEB in the month of August, 2007. Complainant immediately informed the opposite party No. 2 in this connection vide Ex.C-3. Official of the opposite parties gave direct supply to the complainant and started charging bills as per burnt meter of the complainant. Meter of the complainant was changed in the month of February, 2009 though change was necessitated in 5 days as per the regulations and as such deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No. 2 is writ large. Observations in checking report Ex.R-1 are therefore unreliable. The checking report is otherwise not signed and the remarks of refusal therein are baseless.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that checking of electric meter is admitted in this case as the complainant has nowhere stated in his complaint that checking was not made in his presence. It is further argued that complainant was found tapping electricity by direct connection without depositing price of his burnt electricity meter. In this way dishonest intention of the complainant to steel the electricity is clearly proved. Opposite parties have rightly issued notice Ex.R-2. The calculation is available on the reverse side of checking report Ex.R-1 itself which has been proved by Amarjit Singh SDO by way of his duly sworn affidavit Ex.R-3. So, theft of energy is proved. Resultantly, complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

10. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. It is not disputed that electricity meter of the complainant was burnt in way back August, 2007. Information in this respect was sent by the complainant vide application Ex.C-3 which was received in the office of the opposite parties on 21.8.2007 as per report of JE dated 13.9.2007. The meter of the complainant was burnt due to breakdown of 11 KV lines. In para 5 of his complaint complainant has specifically stated among other things that after the burning of the meter official of the opposite parties gave direct supply to the complainant and started charging bills as per the burnt meter of the complainant. Meter of the complainant was changed in the month of February, 2009. In reply in the corresponding para opposite parties have not only denied report lodged by the complainant with them as to the status of the meter but also denied giving of direct supply to him. The opposite party has remained silent in regard to charging bill as per burnt meter of the complainant. As already pointed out above report as to the status of the electric meter was given by the complainant by way of application Ex.C-3. Report of concerned official of the opposite party dated 21.8.2007 and report of JE dated 13.9.2007 thereon clearly proves the receipt of the said information in the office of opposite party. Further, as per clause 21.4 (e) of The Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters), Regulations, 2007 change of meter is necessitated within five days from the date of information. This has been perhaps the reason that complainant was given direct supply. No doubt the complainant has not deposited meter charges but it cannot be denied by the opposite parties that direct supply was not disrupted thereafter and the complainant had been charged as per the burnt meter. Checking report Ex.R-1 if seen in the light of aforesaid background is clearly a report contrary to the actual and factual position and as such is totally unreliable one. Calculation sheet prepared on the basis of 100% too is without any foundation. Therefore, in our considered opinion opposite parties have failed to prove theft of energy by the complainant by leading cogent, reliable and dependable evidence. Consequently, the complaint filed by Rajinder Singh is accepted. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 19,302/- charged by the opposite parties as sundry charges vide bill dated 14.9.2009 and to pay Rs. 1,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant, 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. 19,302/- charged by the opposite parties vide bill dated 14.9.2009 with the opposite parties, be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in his subsequent bills. 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 the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 17.8.2010

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