DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.C. No. 202 of 18.7.2007<br /> Decided on : 27.9.2007 <br /> <br /> Shinder Kaur W/o Sh. Tara Singh, R/o Village Sivian, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Operation Sub Division, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Abhai Khangwal, Advocate<br /> For the opposite party : Sh. J.P.S Brar, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw letter dated 8.6.2007; issue fresh bill as per actual consumption and pay Rs. 20,000/- as damages, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass as under:- <br /> She has her residential house in village Sivian. Electricity connection bearing A/c No. SN-56/1320 has been installed at her residence. Previously electricity connection No. SN-56/570 was running in these premises in the name of one Billu Ram S/o Sh. Bhallu Ram. This property was purchased by her from Billu Ram. Thereafter, new connection No. SN-56/1320 was released to her. Opposite parties issued letter No. 642 dated 8.6.2007 to her raising demand of Rs. 11,469/- on the allegations that she was indulging in theft of electricity. Rs. 11,084/- have been shown for supply of power, Rs. 110/- for electricity duty and Rs. 275/- on account of alleged theft. She asserts that she was not committing theft of electricity nor was she using electricity by illegal means. Allegations levelled are false. If there is any balance against the previous owner, she cannot be held responsible for the same. Demand raised is illegal, without any basis or criteria. Nothing has been recovered from her premises to show that she was committing theft of electricity. She is not bound to pay the amount demanded by the opposite parties. They are causing her harassment. Request made by her to withdraw the letter proved futile. Opposite parties are threating to recover the amount by illegal means i.e. by coercive methods. She got issued legal notice dated 19.6.2007, but opposite parties paid no heed. She is suffering mentally and physically. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed reply that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainant has not come with clean hands and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, they admit that she is having electricity connection bearing A/c No. SN-56/1320 at her residence. Connection No. SN-56/570 was previously running in these premises and thereafter, connection No. SN-56/1320 was released in her name. They further admit that letter No. 642 dated 8.6.2007 raising the demand of Rs. 11,469/- was issued to her as she was indulging in theft of electricity by way of bye-passing the meter and putting loop. Checking was done by the officials of the Board in her presence. She refused to sign the checking report. She is liable to pay the previous balance as she has given undertaking to this effect. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 4. In support of her allegations and averments in the complaint, Smt. Shinder Kaur complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2), photocopy of letter dated 8.6.2007 (Ex.C.3), photocopy of legal notice dated 19.6.2007 (Ex.C.4), postal receipts (Ex.C.5 & Ex.C.6), photocopies of bills (Ex.C.7 & Ex.C.8) and photocopy of payment receipt (Ex.C.9).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2) of S/Sh. R.K. Goel, SDO and Jagtar Singh, J.E respectively, copy of statement of account (Ex.R.3) and photocopy of checking report dated 30.5.2007 (Ex.R.4).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.<br /> 7. Admittedly, connection No. SN-56/570 was previously existing in the premises. After application was moved by her, electricity connection No. SN-56/1320 has been released and it is existing at her residence. Opposite parties admit that out of the impugned amount, they are recovering defaulting amount pertaining to connection No. SN-56/570. Even learned counsel for the opposite parties also made reference to copy of statement of account Ex.R.3 concerning A/c No. SN-56/570 in the name of Billu Ram S/o Sh. Bhallu Ram of village Sivian. A perusal of this document reveals that a sum of Rs. 10,262/- was outstanding against Billu Ram. Connection No. SN-56/570 was disconnected permanently on 25.1.2007. Ex.C.3 is the impugned memo dated 8.6.2007. A perusal of this document reveals that out of Rs. 11,469/-, Rs. 10,262/- pertain to previous account No. SN-56/570 of Billu Ram. No alleged undertaking given by the complainant to pay the amount due against Billu Ram has been placed and proved on record. In these circumstances, complainant cannot be saddled with the responsibility of Billu Ram concerning the amount of Rs. 10,262/-. There is no rule to shift another person's liability to a third person like in the present case. If Billu Ram committed default in making payment, opposite parties can take recourse of law for realization of dues from him. For that, they cannot approach the complainant to make payment. For this, we get support from the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & another-JT-1995(2)SC-626. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission of West Bengal, Kolkata in the case of C.E.S.C. Ltd. Vs. Ruma Banerjee-2005 CTJ-78 (CP) (SCDRC). Accordingly, we hold that complainant is not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 10,262/-.<br /> 8. Opposite parties allege that complainant was committing theft of energy by means of bye-passing the meter and putting loop. Checking was done by their officials in her presence and she refused to sign the checking report. Copy of the checking report is Ex.R.4. No date of checking has been recorded in the reply of the complaint. Even the name of the officer/official, who allegedly did the checking has not been recorded. In the impugned memo/letter dated 8.6.2007, date of checking is 20.5.2007. Checking has been shown by the Operation Staff. In this letter, it has not been made clear, who was the officer/official, who conducted the checking. Opposite parties have placed and proved on record affidavits Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 of S/Sh. R.K. Goel, S.D.O and Jagtar Singh, J.E. Respectively. As per them checking was done on 30.5.2007. In the checking report, date recorded is 30.5.2007, whereas impugned notice sent to the complainant raising the demand reveals the date of checking as 20.5.2007. Opposite parties could not explain it. This casts serious cloud on the version of the opposite parties. <br /> 9. Theft is to be proved by the opposite parties like a criminal charge. In the checking report, copy of which is Ex.R.4, mode and manner in which theft was being committed has been shown by way of sketch of cables which were allegedly being used for bye-passing the meter. Cables were not taken into possession. If she was actually committing theft of energy in this manner, concerned official of the opposite party could take the wires/cables into possession as a matter of proof. He could get the site vediographed/photographed. This has not been done. Since, wires/cables have not been taken into possession, story of the opposite party that she was committing theft of energy falls on the ground. <br /> 10. According to the opposite parties, complainant was present at the time of checking. It is a case of checking regarding theft of electricity. Opposite parties were required to make compliance of Commercial Circular No. 53/2006 issued by the Board. There are serious contraventions of the terms and conditions of this circular issued by the Board. According to this circular, authorised officer and other members of the team should carry Photo Identity Cards. Inspection report should be signed by the authorised officer, all members of the inspection team and consumer/person or his/her representative. In this case, inspection report bears the signatures of the checking officer and one Dinesh Chand. Particulars of Sh. Dinesh Chand and his designation have not been mentioned in the report. At the risk of repetition, it is again mentioned that even the name of checking officer and the particulars of the checking staff have not been disclosed in the reply of the complaint. Opposite parties allege that complainant refused to sign the report. In such a situation, it was incumbent upon the checking officer to paste the copy of the report at a conspicuous place in/outside her premises. Simultaneously, it was further required that inspection report should have been sent to the complainant under registered post. Supply of the premises was to be disconnected forthwith. Meter/metering equipment was to be sealed. Copy of the inspection report was to be sent by the authorised checking officer to the concerned Assessing Officer for making assessment of charges as per provisions of 126 of the Electricity Act. Provisional Assessment Order was to be passed. Further compliance of this circular was required which has not been done. Hence, opposite parties are themselves disobeying this circular of the Board and have acted illegally.<br /> 11. In the premises written above, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is writ large as neither theft of energy has been proved by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence nor liability of the complainant to pay the amount of Billu Ram is proved. <br /> 12. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, complainant is not liable to pay the demand raised by the opposite parties vide impugned letter dated 8.6.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.3. However, opposite parties are at liberty to issue bill as per actual consumption. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused her mental tension and sufferings for which she deserves compensation which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> 13. No other point was urged at the time of arguments.<br /> 14. 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 letter No. 642 dated 8.6.2007 through which demand of Rs. 11,469/- has been raised as the same is illegal and arbitrary.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment. <br /> 15. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 27.9.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member<br /> <br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br />