BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : CC/10/7

Date of Institution : 11.1.2010

Date of Decision : 16.7.2010

Sohan Singh aged about 70 years s/o Tota Singh resident of German Colony, Old Cantt Road, 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. B.B. Khurana counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for charging the amount of Rs. 24,133/- vide letter No. 3554 dated 24.12.2009 in respect of Account No. TD 22/0092 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, case of the complainant is that he is consumer of the opposite parties having domestic electric connection bearing Account No. TD 22/0092 running in the name of the wife of the complainant who has since expired. He received letter No. 3554 dated 24.12.2009 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which the demand of Rs. 24,133/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking dated 19.12.2009 by JE Inspection and OP Staff Faridkot on account of theft of energy. It is denied that connected load of the complainant is 4.073 KW whereas the actual load at the premises of the complainant is very much less. He had installed CFL power saver and no power saver is installed more than 15 watts at the premises of the complainant. No checking by any official of the PSEB was done in the presence of the complainant or any of his authorized representative on 19.12.2009 of the connection of the complainant. No copy of alleged checking report has ever been supplied to the complainant at any point of time not even with the letter of demand inspite of fact note regarding attachment of copy is given on the checking report. On receipt of this notice the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and inquired about the amount demanded by the opposite party. He requested the opposite party No. 2 to supply the copy of alleged checking report but no copy of alleged checking report was ever supplied to the complainant, rather they 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 12.1.2010 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 is suppressing the true facts from this Forum that his meter connection was checked by JE Installation Shivtar Singh alongwith operation staff on 19.12.2009. He was caught red handed while committing theft of energy by bypassing the meter and by using artificial and unauthorized means and tampering the seals. The complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties as the connection is in the name of one Surjit Kaur whereas the complaint has been filed by some Sohan Singh. On merits, it was alleged among other things that Sohan Singh cannot be considered as the consumer of the opposite parties until and unless he enters into fresh agreement with the opposite parties by executing A and A form. It is admitted that the opposite parties have issued letter No. 3554 dated 24.12.2009 in which Rs. 24,133/- have been raised on the basis of checking dated 19.12.2009 by JE Installation and Operation Staff, Faridkot in which the complainant was found committing theft of energy. The checking was done in the presence of Amarjit Singh son of Sardool Singh. On checking it was detected that the complainant had made a joint just before the meter in the incoming PVC and after bypassing the meter again joined the same to the supply line of his house with the incoming PVC. He was caught red handed while fraudulently abstracting the energy by bypassing the meter. When the above loop was removed and the incoming supply was passed through the meter, the meter started recording the consumption. A checking report No. FDK-100/016 was prepared on the spot in the presence of Amarjit Singh. The demand is legal, lawful and as per instructions of 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, copy of memo No. 3554 Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 29.3.2009 Ex.C-3, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of P.P. Sandhu Ex.R-1, copy of checking report No. 16 Ex.R-2, copy of memo No. 3554 Ex.R-3, affidavit of Shivtar Singh Ex.R-4 and closed their evidence.

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 charging of amount of Rs. 24,133/- vide letter dated 24.12.2009 Ex.C-2 in respect of account number of the complainant allegedly on the ground of theft based on checking report Ex.R-2 is illegal, null and void as JE Installation is incompetent for checking of the meter of the complainant and further no such checking even was made in the presence of the complainant or his representative. Amarjit Singh son of Sardool Singh is not related to the complainant and latter has filed duly sworn supplementary affidavit also in this case in this respect. Still further, no artificial means namely electric wire which was allegedly being used by the complainant to tap the energy was neither taken into possession nor produced in this Forum. Therefore, theft of energy as alleged is not proved.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground the complainant is not consumer as the electricity connection in question is in the name of Surjit Kaur. Since there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. He further argued that complainant has withheld the electricity bills and has brought on file bill dated 29.3.2009 alone to conceal higher consumption of electricity. He further argued that electric meter stands installed inside the premises of the complainant, so theft of energy can be easily committed. Further, all particulars given in the checking report clearly prove theft of energy. In regard to the competency of JE to check the electric meter commercial Circular No. 53/2006 authorizing JEs of Operation Wing (within his jurisdiction) has been relied upon.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant however submitted that the circular in question is not helpful as the same is illegal and contrary to the notification issued by the Government of Punjab dated 21^st January, 2005 under Section 135 (2) of Electricity Act, 2003, wherein JEs are not authorized to conduct checking of electric meters. In regard to maintainability he has relied upon judgments of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Sat Pal Versus PSEB through its Secretary and others 2006(2) CPC-137 and Rajinder Kumar Sekhri Versus PSEB Patiala and another reported as 1997(1) CLT-39.

11. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. In this case, the electric connection is in the name of wife of complainant and relation of the complainant with the account holder is not specifically denied by the opposite parties in the written statement. Even in Rajinder Kumar Sekhri case supra complainant had been beneficiary of the services hired by his father and he continued in the same position after his death. It was held that being beneficiary he would be a consumer as defined in Section 2 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act and is entitled to approach District Forum for deficiency in rendering services on the part of the Electricity Board. In Sat Pal case supra also it was held that a person who is staying in a house as an actual user of electricity would be a consumer being beneficiary. In the said case also initially the connection was in the name of the father of the complainant. It was held that a beneficiary is also a consumer as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) (i) of the Act. So, being beneficiary and the resident of the premises where the electricity meter is installated he is consumer of the opposite parties.

12. As per notification dated 21^st January, 2005 issued by the Punjab Government in case of all domestic connections AE, AEE and Senior Xen within their jurisdiction alone are authorized to conduct/inspect the premises of the consumer. Commercial circular No. 53/06 issued authorizing JEs also in this connection cannot operate contrary to the notification issued by the Punjab Government. Therefore, in our considered opinion JE Installation is incompetent for checking the premises of the complainant. Further, it is noticed that the checking report Ex.R-2 is not signed by the complainant. Amarjit Singh has been shown therein as representative of the complainant but it is not explained as to what relation he has got with the complainant or whether he has been authorized by the complainant for the purpose. As per remarks in the checking report it is stated that on checking it was detected that complainant had made a joint just before the meter in the incoming PVC and after bypassing the meter again joined the same to the supply line of his house. On removal of wire meter was made functional on load. However, no such wire was seized and taken into possession nor produced before the Forum. In view of the aforesaid infirmities, checking report has been proved to be nothing more than a waste paper. Theft of energy in the manner alleged by the opposite parties has remained to be proved. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly, opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 24,133/- charged by the opposite parties vide letter No. 3554 dated 24.12.2009 alongwith all the surcharges, if any, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. In the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Any amount, if already deposited by the complainant with regard to above mentioned charges of Rs. 24,133/- vide letter No. 3554 dated 24.12.2009 with the opposite parties, be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in his next 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 order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 16.7.2010

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