BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 107

Date of Institution : 16.4.2010

Date of Decision : 11.11.2010

Suba Singh aged about 57 years s/o Angrej Singh resident of House No. 30, Street No. 2, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

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

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) City Sub Division, 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. 19,290/- as sundry charges in the bill issued on 5.1.2010 to the complainant account No. CR 45/0535 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said sundry charges and to refund Rs. 7,500/- deposited by the complainant on dated 19.1.2010 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 domestic electric connection Account No. CR 45/0535 running in the premises of the complainant. He received bill issued on 5.1.2010 in which sundry charges of Rs. 19,290/- have been charged illegally and unlawfully. No notice has been received by the complainant about the sundry charges charged in the bill. Moreover, 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 the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and enquired about the charges levied through sundry but no detail of the sundry charges was supplied to the complainant. However, opposite party No. 2 got deposited Rs. 7500/- vide receipt No. 330 on 19.1.2010 with the assurance that the excess amount charged will be refunded in the next bill. The opposite party again issued the bill on 27.3.2010 of Rs. 16,390/- in which Rs. 15,140/- has been shown as arrears of the bill. The bill has not been corrected as agreed by the opposite party No. 2 in the month of January, 2010. The complainant again approached the opposite party No. 2 and requested them to withdraw the said charges but the opposite party No. 2 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 20.4.2010 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 present complaint in the present form is not maintainable as the complainant was committing theft of energy. The present complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it is admitted that the present connection is installed in the premises of the complainant. The connection of the complainant was checked by Shivtar Singh JE Installation on 1.7.2008 in the presence of the complainant and during checking it was found that the complainant was committing theft of energy by directly using the same. He had made a cut in the main PVC wire and was directly using the same. The said checking was done in the presence of the complainant. The detailed report was prepared at the spot which was duly signed by the complainant Suba Singh in token of its correctness. He was called to deposit the said amount but he did not deposit the same so the present amount added in the bill. 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, copies of bills Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, receipt No. 330 Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 4.11.2009 Ex.C-5, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Prit Pal Singh Ex.R-1, checking report Ex.R-2, affidavit of Shivtar Singh Ex.R-3, documents Ex.R-4 and Ex.R-5 and evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order of this Forum vide order dated 15.10.2010.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file.

8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case is that the amount of Rs. 19,290/- has been illegally charged in the bill of the complainant dated 5.1.2010 Ex.C-3 by way of sundry. Alleged checking dated 1.7.2008 Ex.R-8 is stated to have been made by JE who is unauthorized to conduct such checking in view of the notification issued by the Punjab Government under Section 135 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Electricity supply was not disconnected as per para 37.1 (a) (i) of Conditions of Supply. In the written statement there is no specific reference of demand. In affidavit of Shivtar Singh JE Ex.R-3 manner of stealing of theft has been given contrary to the one as recorded in the meter checking report Ex.R-2.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that checking in this case was done by the official of the opposite parties in the presence of complainant himself as the same is found to have been signed at appropriate place of checking report Ex.R-2. No objection was taken by the complainant in regard to the checking at any time prior to the filing of the present complaint. Moreover, nothing in this respect even has been stated by him in the existing complaint. As per learned counsel for the opposite parties there is no inconsistency between the observations/remarks qua manner of theft of energy in checking report Ex.R-2 and affidavit of Shivtar Singh JE Ex.R-3 as in the latter only gist of the manner of stealing electricity has been given. It is also argued that checking having been done in discharge of official duty of concerned employee so no fault can be found with it on the ground of objections taken for the first time in the complaint.

10. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. In this case sundry charges in the bill dated 5.1.2010 are charged on the ground of theft of energy by the complainant in view of the checking report Ex.R-2. In the checking report specific remarks qua the manner adopted by the complainant to steal the electricity has been given as under_.

On the spot consumer had made a cut in the main neutral PVC wire and in that manner had stopped the same from connecting the meter installed in the house and instead using private earth wire with the phase. Meter was found stopped at load. In the affidavit of Shivtar Singh JE Installation Ex.R-3 it is stated that the complainant had made a cut in the main PVC wire and was directly using the same. The manner of theft is apparently at variance with in so far as the remarks in the checking report and statement of concerned JE by way of his affidavit Ex.R-3. Strangely enough, contrary to the Conditions of supply Code para 37.1 (a) (i) supply to the premises of the complainant was not disconnected nor any complaint was lodged with the police having jurisdiction in the area. Meter was not sealed nor hearing was given to him to explain the position. In this way, in our considered opinion theft of energy as alleged has remained to be proved.

11. In the light of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by Suba Singh is partly accepted with a direction to the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal and unlawful charges of Rs. 19,290/- raised vide bill dated 5.1.2010 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. 19,290/- raised vide bill dated 5.1.2010 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 the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 11.11.2010

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