BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.337 of 2020 Date of Instt.06.10.2020 Date of Decision: 20.04.2021

Nisha Kumari W/o Sh. Abhishek Aggarwal R/o 42- Hardyal Nagar, Near S.G.L. Hospital, Jalandhar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/ Managing Director.

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Hadiabad, Phagwara, District Kapurthala.

..…Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

MRS.JYOTSNA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:

For Complainant : Sh.Chandandeep Singh, Advocate.

For OPs : Sh.D.R. Seth, Advocate.

ORDER:-

KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs vide connection No.3000889531 having sanctioned load of 6 KW. The said connection is in the name of previous occupant of property. Complainant purchased the said property vide sale deed No.1612 date 11.08.2017. The complainant is paying the bills issued by OPs. The meter is installed outside the premises of complainant in sealed MCB Box. On 07.09.2020, the official of OP-2 disconnected the electric supply and removed the meter lying installed at the said connection on the pretext of instructions of senior officials. However, the meter was neither packed nor sealed in presence of consumer/complainant or her representative and it was taken in naked condition by putting it in bucket of scooter. The complainant called the office of OP-2 and asked for reason of disconnecting the supply. OP-2 could not give any plausible reply but assured the complainant that electricity supply shall be restored by the evening and new meter shall be installed. Despite follow-ups, the OP-2 failed to restore the electricity supply. The complainant is without electricity since 07.09.2020. No notice for any alleged recovery/arrears or any defiance made by complainant. No notice was given to complainant prior to checking of meter in ME lab if any. No opportunity of hearing was given before disconnection of connection. The complainant is not into arrears as per the record, account books, billing system of OP-2, except the bill dated 12.05.2020 for Rs.7790/-. There cannot be survival without electricity. Lastly, prayer has been made that OPs be directed to restore electric connection No.3000889531 and Ops be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the charges levied are on account of arrears of electric charges balance outstanding of unpaid amounts and actual consumption of electricity and by means of unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act with regard to Electric Connection Account No.3000889531 Domestic Supply (DS) and another electric connection account No.3000889532 Non Residential Supply (NRS) connection. Both running in the name of Ms Manjutully wife of Sanjiv Kumar at Village Maheru Under commercial sub division Hadiabad and Division Office Phagwara as per record. Complainant does not have any locus standi to file the present complaint as per record of OPs. Manu tully is actual consumer of OPs as per record and the complainant has got nothing to do with same. Moreover, she has no applied for change of name of said two electric connections in her name with OP-2. The agreement with regard to said two number of electric connection are between Manju Tully and OP-2; This Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain, the complaint. As the consumer of said account No.3000889531 have committed unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of Electricity Act. The provisional order of assessment was issued and after filing of objection by complainant the final order of assessment Under Section 126 of Electricity Act was issued. Against which the appeal against final order of assessment can be proceeded with Xen/P & M distribution of Zone of OPs. Complaint is bad for misjoinder of and non-joinder of necessary parties; complainant has not come this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts and has not mentioned the defaulting amount of Rs.1,04,122/- with account No.3000889531 and Rs.2,13,192/- with account No.3000889532 and that of Rs.81,169/- with account No.3000889531 on account of (UUE) as he has filed objection of provision order of Assessment Memo No.1586 dated 30.09.2020 for a sum of Rs.81,169/- of UUE in her objections dated 20.10.2020.On merits, it is submitted that complainant is not consumer of OPs of electric connection No.3000889531. Whereas, as per record, Manju Tully is actual consumer of OPs. The electric connection account No.3000889531 (DS) with sanctioned load of 6.00 KW was disconnected on 06.12.2019 and electric connection account No.3000889532 (NRS) with sanctioned load of 4.00 KW was disconnected on 13.01.2020 due to defaulting amounts of electric charges and checking of electric connection account was conducted on 07.09.2020 by concerned officers of OPs. As a matter of fact the premises having electric connection account No.3000889531 in the name of Manju Tully was checked by Authorized Officer AEE/OP-T-3 of OPs on 07.09.2020 vide checking report No.12/1349 in present of representative of consumer AK Gupta who admittedly countersigned the checking report alongwith other officers/Engineer of Ops and it has been detected that domestic supply connection is being using for commercial purpose Non residential supply for Oyo Hotel JB Inn. That due to balance outstanding of electric connection account No.3000889532 NRS for a sum of Rs.1,52,080/-. This connection has already been disconnected permanently and this account No.3000889531 (DS) has also been permanently disconnected on 07.09.2020 and it has been noted that this connection is running at the site and meter was got checked in ME Lab. The meter was removed in presence of AK Gupta the representative of consumer who asked to be present in ME Lab so that the replaced meter be checked in his presence but he showed his unavailability and extended the written consent to get the meter checked in his absence and whatsoever the result are would be acceptable to them. The replaced meter was checked in ME Lab on 17.09.2020 by concerned officers/Engineer of OPs and it has been detected that as per checking dated 07.09.2020, the meter was already disconnecting on 06.12.2019 but could not be removed from the site despite the PDCO. The electricity supply has been running and due to the display of the meter found defective and billing was done according to LDHF factor. During checking of connection account No.3000889531 dated 07.09.2020 by AEE/OP it has been noted that this connection has been running at site with sanction load of 6.00 KW and detected load at the spot was 9.189 KW and consumer was using excess load than the sanctioned load. The meter of connection was permanently disconnected on 06.12.2019 due to defaulting amount. But unintentionally the meter could not be removed from the site by JE and consumer himself connected the supply. The supply from this connection was being used for NRS purpose for other premises of OYO Hotel JB Inn. Where the electric connection account No.3000889532 in the name of Manju Tully was running previously and which has already been permanently disconnected on 13.01.2020 and meter of account No.3000889531 was not working as its display was dead. But the electricity was being consumed by Manju Tully. The meter was removed from site vide checking report dated 07.09.2020 in the presence of AK Gupta Rep. of consumer put his signature on the paper seal which was affixed on the card box. Two separate notices were issued to consumer Manju Tully account No.3000889531 i.e. one for energy bill for the period from 4/2019 to 7/2020 (for the period meter remained installed at the site inspite of fact meter was disconnected permanently and the consumer was consuming electricity from the said meter for Rs.2,56,202/- i.e. Rs.1,04,122/- for energy bill of account No.3000889531 w.e.f. 4/2019 to 7/2020, Rs.1,52,080/- for default amount of account No.3000869532 as on 10.09.2020. In fact, said both notices have been issued in the name of Manju Tully who is consumer of OPs as per record. On receipt of Provisional Order of Assessment Memo No.1586 dated 30.09.2020 for Rs.81,169/- on account of unauthorized use of electricity of account No.3000889531. The complainant filed objections dated 20.10.2020 with AEE/OP (SDO) PSPCL – OP-2 who was heard and final order of assessment Memo No.1956 dated 05.11.2020 was issued by OP-2 to Manju Tully of account No.3000889531 (DS) has decided that unauthorized use of Electricity (UUE) has taken place and Manjutully have electric connection account No.3000889531 (DS) is directed to deposit the finally assessed charges of Rs.81,169/- that the total amount of Rs.3,98,483/- is still due from the consumer i.e. (a) Rs.1,04,122/- (Energy Bill of account No.3000889531 (DS) w.e.f. 4/19 to 7.09.2020, (b) Rs.2,13,192/- default amount of account No.3000889532 (NRS) as on 29.10.2020 (connection already disconnected) (1,52,080/- + 58,712/- + interest) (c) Rs.81,169/- amount of UUE (A/C No.3000889531 (DS).The consumer is defaulter of electric charges of Ops to the tune of Rs.3,98,483/- which she is liable to pay. Other averments of complaint denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.

4. In order to prove his case, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CAalongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21 and closed the evidence.

5. On the other hand the OP gave noting on the last page of written reply that he does not want to submit any document alongwith written reply, so as per amended rule, either of the party can file document alongwith pleadings, but not later on.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very carefully.

7. From the scrutiny of this case, it is transpired that it is a case of unauthorized use of electricity/theft case and the Ops have issued demand/notice under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (For Unauthorized use of electricity). As per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd & Ors Vs Anis Ahmad decided on 01.07.2013 and relevant Para No. 46 is reproduced as under:-

“46. The act of indulgence in “unauthorized use of electricity” by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 neither has any relationship with “unfair trade practice” or “restrictive trade practice” or “deficiency in service” nor does it amounts to hazardous services by the licensee. Such acts of “unauthorized use of electricity” has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the price. Therefore, acts of person in indulging in ‘unauthorized use of electricity’, do not fall within the meaning of “complaint”, as we have noticed above and, therefore, the “complaint” against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Commission has already noticed that the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.”

8. From facts and circumstances of the case, we accordingly, disposed of the complaint. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek remedy before the competent court/authority and also seeks condonation of delay for the period for which instant complaint remained pending before this Forum, if he so desires and or if so advised.

9. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, free of cost, as prescribed under the rules.

10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work and spread of Covid-19.

11. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

20^th of April 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)