BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 54 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 21.05.2008<br /> Date of Service: 05.06.2008<br /> Decided On: 21.08.2008<br /> <br /> Bahadur Singh (aged 50 years) son of Sh.Jagir Singh, resident of village: Dala, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.<br /> <br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Moga.<br /> 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Badhni Kalan Distt.Moga.<br /> <br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.K.S.Gill, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.R.K.Goyal, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Bahadur Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary and others-opposite parties (herein-after referred to as ‘Board’) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.88533/- raised vide bill dated 06.05.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Bahadur Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.DF72/0143K installed at his residential premises having sanctioned load of 1.28 KW. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden, he received a bill dated 06.05.2008 in which the OPs-Board demanded Rs.88533/-. That no inspection of his premises was ever made by the OPs-Board. That the complainant never committed any theft of energy. That the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board time and again and requested to withdraw the impugned amount, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.20000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.R.K.Goyal Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it was averred that on 23.2.2008, Sh. Bakhshish Singh SDO, Badhni Kalan and Bhupinder Singh J.E of the OPs-Board checked the residential premises of the complainant in presence of his representative namely Jagtar Singh and found the complainant stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by inserting direct wire into fitting from point of main service by switching off the main switch and stopping the electric meter. They also found the complainant using the excess and unauthorized load of 3.292 KW than the sanctioned load of 1.00 KW. That the checking was conducted in presence of representative of the complainant, but he refused to sign the checking report. Thereafter, memo no. 5067 dated 28.3.2008 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.80733/- on account of theft of energy as well as excess load, but the complainant did not pay the same. Thereafter, the impugned amount was added in the bill dated 06.05.2008. Thus, the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover the same. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, bills Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.Executive Engineer, affidavit Ex.R2 of Bhupinder Singh J.E, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4, copies of circular Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.K.S.Gill ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.R.K.Goyal ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.K.S.Gill ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.88533/- raised vide bill dated 6.5.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in theft of energy. <br /> 8. On the other hand, Sh.R.K.Goyal ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that on 23.2.2008, Sh. Bakhshish Singh SDO, Badhni Kalan and Bhupinder Singh J.E of the OPs-Board checked the residential premises of the complainant in presence of his representative namely Jagtar Singh and found the complainant stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by inserting direct wire into fitting from point of main service by switching off the main switch and stopping the electric meter. They also found the complainant using the excess and unauthorized load of 3.292 KW than the sanctioned load of 1.00 KW. The checking was conducted in presence of representative of the complainant, but he refused to sign the checking report. Thereafter, memo no. 5067 dated 28.3.2008 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.80733/- on account of theft of energy as well as excess load, but the complainant did not pay the same. Thereafter, the impugned amount was added in the bill dated 06.05.2008. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has full force. Admittedly, the premises of the complainant was checked on 23.02.2008 by Bakhshish Singh SDO, Badhni Kalan and Bhupinder Singh J.E of the OPs-Board who found him committing theft of energy in the aforesaid manners and also using the excess load of 2.292 KW. Both the charges of theft and using excess load have been proved from the checking report Ex.R3. To further strengthen the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the OPs-Board have produced affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.Executive Engineer, affidavit Ex.R2 of Bhupinder Singh J.E checking officer, copy of notice Ex.R4, copies of circular Ex.R5 and Ex.R6.<br /> 9. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not stealing the electricity and using the excess load except his own affidavit Ex.A1. There is no corroboration to his affidavit that he was not stealing the electricity by illegal means and using the excess load. Moreover, he has reason to give false affidavit in order to save himself from the consequences of being caught red handed while stealing the electricity by illegal means. Thus, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and we discard the same.<br /> 10. On the other hand, the checking party had acted in accordance with rules and regulations issued by PSEB from time to time and in discharge of their official duties. They were supposed to do all their acts bonafidely and in good faith and without any malice or motive. The complainant has not alleged any ill-will or animus against them. They have no reason to make a wrong report against him. In view of these circumstances, we hold that on 23.02.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means and using the excess load. <br /> 11. Moreover, in case of fraudulent abstraction of energy this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint made by the complainant. On this point rulings cited IV (2003) Consumer Protection Judgements-376 ‘South West Distribution Co.Ltd (BSES) Versus Inder Pal Thapar of Delhi State Commission, II (2004) Consumer Protection Judgements- 20 Puran Chand versus B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Limited & Anr. of Hon’ble Delhi State Commission and 2006(3) The Punjab Law Reporter page 14 titled as Delhi Vidyut Board Vs.Devindra Singh and another of Delhi High Court are quite applicable to the facts of the present case. It has been held that in such circumstances the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act and the dispute between the parties can not be said to be a ‘consumer dispute’. Similar view was held by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in III (2003) Consumer Protection Judgements-66 Delhi Vidyut Board Versus D.N.Shukla.<br /> 12. In view of aforesaid circumstances, we hold that the complainant was found stealing the electricity and using the excess load than the sanctioned one by aforesaid illegal means. Thus, the impugned demand of Rs.88533/- made from the complainant on account of theft of energy and excess load by the OPs-Board was quite legal and valid and as per rules and instructions of the PSEB. The complainant has failed to prove if there was any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs-Board. <br /> 13. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order shall be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:21.08.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />