DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.297 of 22.10.2007<br /> Decided on : 28.01.2008 <br /> <br /> Sukhdev Kaur W/o Gurmail Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, R/o H. No.22842-A, Gali No. 12/4, Power House Road, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Elecy. Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.A.E.E./S.D.O, Punjab State Elecy. Board, Civil Lines Sub Division, 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. Ashok Gupta, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. S.S Dhillon, Advocate<br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to quash the demand of Rs. 9,317/-; refund the amount, if any, got deposited out of it under compelled circumstances alongwith interest @ 18% P.A till realization; pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that she is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. AP-61/0277M which has been installed at her residence. She is regularly making payment of the electricity consumption bills issued from time to time. Bill dated 8.10.2007 was received by her for Rs. 11,294/- for the consumption of 608 units only. This amount includes Rs. 9,317/- which has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances without disclosing the nature thereof. Opposite party No. 2 was approached to inquire about the matter. Threat was extended to her to deposit the amount failing which the electricity connection would be disconnected. She assails the demand of Rs. 9,317/- as illegal, null and void, against law and facts and not binding upon her on the grounds that connection is being utilized entirely for domestic purposes and no commercial activity is being done; no checking whatsoever was conducted by the opposite parties at any point of time in her presence or in the presence of her representative; she was not indulging in theft of energy; no show cause notice was served upon her; no opportunity of hearing was afforded; no demand was ever raised vide separate memo and the impugned amount has been charged straightway in the bill; meter was not removed in her presence nor her signatures were obtained and nature of demand has not been disclosed to her. Opposite parties were repeatedly asked to correct the bill and not to disconnect the electricity connection, but to no effect. It is further alleged that the act and conduct of the opposite parties have caused her mental tension and agony. In these circumstances, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; dispute pertains to theft of energy and as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint; complainant is not consumer; she is estopped from filing the complaint by her act and conduct and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, they admit that complainant is the holder of domestic electricity connection. Inter-alia, their plea is that connection was checked by the officials of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) on 30.6.2007. From the main gate of the house of the complainant, they found that a magnet was lying on the meter. Till the checking staff could come to the place where meter was installed and magnet was placed on it, complainant/her representative removed the magnet and took it away in her house in the presence of the checking staff. Checking report was prepared. It was suggested to put the meter in MCB. Checking report was signed by the checking staff. Complainant refused to sign it. Note to this effect was given on the checking report itself. It is a clear-cut case of theft of electricity. On the basis of the checking report, memo No. 1788 dated 12.7.2007 raising demand of Rs. 9,317/- was issued. Despite this, complainant failed to deposit this amount. Accordingly, this amount of Rs. 9,317/- has been charged in the bill dated 8.10.2007. They deny that the demand is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the complaint. Similarly, they do not admit remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Sukhdev Kaur complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.8), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex.C.2) and photocopies of bills (Ex.C.3 to Ex.C.7 & Ex.C.9).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1,Ex.R.4 & Ex. R.5) of S/Sh. R.K. Singla, SDO, Rajwinder Singh, J.E ad Rahul Kansal, AEE/SDO respectively, photocopy of notice of provisional assessment (Ex.R.2) and photocopy of Checking Report dated 30.6.2007 (Ex.R.3). <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record. <br /> 7. Argument pressed into service by Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the opposite parties is that complainant is not consumer and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the matter in dispute pertains to theft of electricity. This argument is devoid of merits. Requisite amount has been deposited by the complainant for availing the services of the Board for use of electricity. Even if theft of electricity is established in a case, even t hen Consumer Fora has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. It has been held in the case of BSES Yamuna Power Limited Vs. Neeraj Kumar-2007 CTJ-300 (CP)(SCDRC) that Consumer Forums/Commissions have the jurisdiction not only to decide every kind of dispute under the Electricity Act, 2003, but have also the jurisdiction to decide any question of law arising from the provisions of this Act including the dispute Under Section 135 relating to allegations of theft of electricity and dishonest abstraction of energy. In view of all this, complainant is consumer and this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.<br /> 8. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant was not committing theft of energy by placing the magnet on the meter installed at her residence. Theft of energy alleged by the opposite parties does not stand established and that there is contravention of Commercial Circulars of the Board as well.<br /> 9. Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that connection of the complainant was checked by Mr. Rahul Kansal, AEE/SDO on 30.6.2007. He was assisted by Mr. Rajwinder Singh, J.E and Mr. Amar Nath, ALM. Complainant was found indulging in theft of energy by way of placing magnet on the meter. Checking report was prepared, copy of which is Ex.R.3. Provisional order of assessment was passed, copy of which is Ex.R.2. Sh. Rahul Kansal, AEE/SDO and Sh. Rajwinder Singh, J.E have submitted their affidavits Ex.R.5 & Ex.R.4 respectively to support the version in the reply of the complaint. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. Opposite parties are alleging that complainant was committing theft of energy by placing the magnet on the meter which was installed for recording energy. They are claiming the amount of Rs. 9,317/- on this ground. The onus is upon them to establish it. In our view, no cogent and convincing evidence has been led by them to prove it. The affidavits Ex.R.4 & Ex.R.5 of S/Sh. Rajwinder Singh and Rahul Kansal do not advance their cause. They do not state that they found that meter was lying stopped and that it was not recording the consumption. According to the reply of the complaint, the officials had seen the magnet when they had reached the main gate of the consumer. The distance between the main gate of the house of the complainant and the place where meter has been installed, has been left in the lurch by the opposite parties. Had it been explained, this Forum could infer as to whether the officials could visualize the alleged magnet on the meter. The evidence to this effect is lacking. Even if it is taken for arguments sake although we do not subscribe to it that complainant had placed the magnet on the meter, even then theft of electricity is not proved, especially when Ex.R.4 & Ex.R.5 do not show that meter was dead stop and was not recording the consumption of electricity. If magnet was found placed on the meter and taken away by the complainant/her representative, efforts could be made by the checking staff to recover it from the complainant. There is no evidence to this effect. Criminal case could be got registered. No reason has been assigned as to why report was not made to the police. From this fact, adverse inference is drawn against the opposite parties that there is something else behind the story which has been concealed by the opposite parties.<br /> 11. There is non-compliance of Commercial Circular No. 34/2006 read with Commercial Circular no. 53/2006 of the Board in this case. Commercial Circular No. 53/2006 has been issued by the Board in the form of clarifications/amendments to Commercial Circular No. 34/2006. Members of the checking team should carry photo identity cards with them. Checking report should be signed by all the members of the inspection team and the consumer or his/her representative. Copy of the inspection report should be handed over to him/her or his/her representative against receipt. In case of refusal by the Consumer or his/her representative, a copy of the inspection report is required to be pasted on conspicuous place in/outside the premises. Simultaneously, inspection report should be sent to the person under registered post. In case of theft of energy, the supply of the premises should be disconnected forthwith. In this case, version of the opposite parties is that consumer had refused to sign the checking report. If it was do, copy of the checking report should be passed in/outside her premises. Simultaneously, checking report should be sent to her under registered post and her connection could be disconnected forthwith. This has not been done. Inference is that these instructions of the Board have not been followed as there was no theft of energy by the complainant.<br /> 12. As a result of our foregoing discussion, conclusion is that the plea of the opposite parties that complainant was committing theft of energy is not established. Accordingly, demand of Rs. 9,317/- raised by them through memo No. 1788 dated 12.7.2007 is certainly illegal, arbitrary, null and void. As the demand of Rs. 9,317/- shown in the bill dated 8.10.2007 is illegal, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved.<br /> 13. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. As discussed above, the demand of Rs. 9,317/- raised by the opposite parties shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 8.10.2007 is illegal, arbitrary, null and void and as such, it is liable to be set-aside. Opposite parties are not entitled to recover this amount. Complainant has placed on record photocopy of receipt Ex.C.2 according to which a sum of Rs. 8,030/- has been deposited. Accordingly, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to refund the amount got deposited out of the amount of Rs. 9,317/- alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of deposit till payment. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused mental tension and agony to the complainant for which she deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> 14. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 15. 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 ) Refund the amount got deposited from the complainant out of the amount of Rs. 9,317/- shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 8.10.2007 alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of deposit till payment.<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 /> 16. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 28.01.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member Member<br /> 'bsg'<br />