BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : CC/10/1

Date of Institution : 1.1.2010

Date of Decision : 15.7.2010

Sukhdev Singh aged about 50 years s/o Amar Singh, resident of Kamiana Gate, 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. 20,057/- as sundry charges charged in the bill issued on 14.11.2009 to the complainant Account No. KG 56/0224 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal and unlawful amount charged as sundry charges and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Briefly stated, case of the complainant is that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having a domestic electric connection bearing Account No. KG 56/0224 running in the premises of the complainant in the name of Jang Singh his brother who has since been expired. He received bill issued on 14.11.2009 in which sundry charges of Rs. 20,057/- 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 the above said bill, he visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and enquired about the charges levied through sundry but no detail of the charges was supplied to the complainant. The charges are illegal, unlawful and against the instructions of PSEB. He again approached the opposite party No. 2 and requested to withdraw the illegal and unlawful 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 4.1.2010 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 connection of the complainant was checked by AEE, City Sub Division, Faridkot alongwith his operation staff on 13.12.2008 and he was caught red handed while committing theft of energy by bypassing the meter. The complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties as the connection is in the name of Jung Singh whereas complaint has been filed by some Sukhdev Singh. On merits, it was alleged among other things that Sukhdev 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 bill dated 14.11.2009 in which Rs. 20,057/- have been raised on the basis of checking dated 13.12.2008 by Pritpal Singh Sandhu AEE City Sub Division, Faridkot and his operation staff, Faridkot in which the complainant was found committing theft of energy. The checking was done in the presence of the complainant. 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 with the help of a loop. A checking report number 55/070 was prepared on the spot in the presence of complainant. The complainant has refused to put his signatures on the report. He was issued memo No. 680 dated 20.3.2009 for recovery of Rs. 20,016/-. 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 affidavits Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-3, copy of bill dated 14.11.2009 Ex.C-2 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, copy of checking report dated 13.12.2008 Ex.R-2, copy of memo No. 680 Ex.R-3, copy of RCA Ex.R-4, affidavit of P.P. Singh Ex.R-5 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 the action of the opposite parties for charging Rs. 20,057/- as sundry charges in the bill dated 14.11.2009 Ex.C-2 allegedly on checking dated 13.12.2008 Ex.R-2 is illegal. He has contended that no alleged checking was made either in the presence of the complainant or his representative. The remarks of refusal to sign as reported in the checking report are false. Otherwise also, no procedure has been followed as is required in case of refusal of the consumer to sign any such report. Still further, alleged use of wire as a loop to tap the energy was not taken into possession. No difference in the sanctioned and connected load is recorded. Both the loads are shown to be the same which is a clear pointer of the fact that no checking on the spot was done. AEE who allegedly made the checking is of Sadiq as per Ex.R-3 but in the affidavit Ex.R-1 there is reference of checking by the AEE, City Sub Division, Faridkot. Still further, notice of checking and demand was issued on 20.3.2009 as is evident from Ex.R-3. Detail of amount raised in the said notice is not explained. It is also not explained as to whether charging in this case at the load on 30% or 100%. Therefore, checking report in this case is totally unreliable document and the demand notice issued on the basis of it is liable to be set aside and complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be accepted.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that complainant is not the consumer. On the contrary, electric connection is in the name of Jung Singh brother of the complainant. The said connection has not been got transferred, therefore complaint is simply unmaintainable. In support, he has relied upon Naresh Chander Versus SDO, HSEB, III (1995) CPJ-162. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further argued that theft of energy in this case stands clearly proved in view of the checking report Ex.R-2 proved by Pritpal Singh AEE, City Sub Division, PSEB, Faridkot by way of his affidavit Ex.R-5 who found that complainant had made a point just before the meter in the incoming PVC and after bypassing the meter again joined the same to the supply line of his house. Therefore, there was no question of checking the load. Notice Ex.R-3 was received by Gurpreet Singh representative of the complainant which gives complete detail of sundry. However, no representation or objection against the said charges were made to any authority whatsoever. Therefore, checking report in this case cannot be disbelieved. He further argued that otherwise also theft/dishonest abstraction of energy is not adjudicable before authorities under the Consumer Protection Act as the same is not a consumer dispute. In support, he has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court Delhi Vidyut Board Versus Devendra Singh & Anr. 1 (2006) CPJ-377 and judgment of Delhi State Commission in Delhi Vidyut Board Versus D.N. Shukla III (2003) CPJ-66.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant however submitted in rebuttal that complainant being beneficiary is not debarred from filing the present complaint. So, his complaint is well maintainable. In his view, the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties are not attracted to the present case. In support of his such submission heavy reliance has been placed 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. After having given serious thought to the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record we have found the complaint filed by Sukhdev Singh is maintainable in view of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant. 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. In view of above authorities the complainant being beneficiary is a consumer of the opposite parties, so the judgment of Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in Naresh Chander case supra relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is of no help to them.

12. In regard to second limb of arguments that theft/dishonest abstraction of energy is not adjudicable before the authorities under the Act it can be submitted with due deference to the findings of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble Delhi State Commission that opposite parties being service provider, complaint filed by a consumer against it on the basis of alleged theft of dishonest abstraction of energy is maintainable and adjudicable by the Consumer Forum.

13. Now we revert to the point whether or not theft of energy committed by the complainant by way of illegal means is proved in this case ? The main plank of allegations of theft of energy in this case is checking report Ex.R-2. The checking report is not signed by anyone. However, at the relevant place meant for signatures of the consumer, remarks can be seen that he refused to put signatures. In the given set of circumstances, concerned officer/official was required under regulations to paste copy of checking report on conspicuous part of the premises of the complainant and further to send a copy thereof to him by post. In this connection clause 37.1.(f) of The Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Cod and Related Matters) Regulations 2007 can be referred to with advantage. Receipt of notice Ex.R-3 by Gurpreet Singh alleged representative of the complainant cannot serve the purpose of presence of complainant or his representative at the time of checking on the spot. Further, as per the remarks in the checking report Ex.R-2, consumer was committing theft of energy bypassing the meter and by using white colour wire as a loop. However, no such wire was seized or taken into possession nor the same was produced in the Forum. Still further, sanctioned load and connected load are stated to be same i.e. 1 KW in either case. There is no further detail of points which were found in use at the time of spot checking. In view of the above, there is hardly any sufficient material or information to prove theft of energy by the complainant by illegal means. Therefore, in our considered opinion the opposite parties has failed to prove the allegation of theft of energy by the complainant.

14. In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly, opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 20,057/- charged by the opposite parties vide bill dated 14.11.2009 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. 20,057/- vide bill dated 14.11.2009 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: 15.7.2010

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