Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/71

Harbans Silngh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab state Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Randeep

16 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 71 dated 11.02.2021.                                                Date of decision: 16.11.2022.

 

Harbans Singh aged 52 years son of Sh. Sadhu Singh, resident of House No.103-A, Police Lines, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                 ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Managing Director.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division City West (Spl.), Sub Division (T)/Unit-1, Ludhiana through its AEE.                                                                                                                …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Narinder Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a serving Inspector in Punjab Police and he was allotted a residential accommodation  having House No.103-A at Police Lines, Civil Lines, Ludhiana in the year 1997. There exist an electric connection bearing account No.3001874270 in the name of Jarnail Singh and the meter was installed outside the house premises. It is further stated that the average bill consumption of the electricity ranged from Rs.1000/- to Rs.1500/- per month and the electricity was being consumed for domestic/residential purpose and the complainant had been regularly paying the bills. Further in the month of October 2020, the complainant was posted in STF Ferozepur Range, Punjab. On 19.10.2020, the complainant visited the Government quarter and was astonished to find that the old electricity meter has been replaced with a new meter by some unknown persons after stealing the electricity meter. The complainant lodged a FIR No.380 dated 22.10.2020 under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana. The complainant also moved an application to the opposite parties for change of meter and on 20.10.2020, the requisite charges of Rs.640/- were deposited with the opposite parties and a new electricity meter was installed. Thereafter, a fresh electricity bill of Rs.1130/- dated 11.11.2020 was also deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the opposite parties sent another letter dated 16.01.2021 vide which a demand of Rs.58,910/- was raised showing Rs.56,819/- to be sundry charges. The complainant approached the opposite parties asking for details of the demand raised by the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not give any satisfactory reply and further threatened to disconnect the electricity supply in case the amount is not paid. The complainant states that the demand made by the opposite parties is illegal, null and void, unjustified and arbitrary and he is not liable to pay the amount claimed for. The complainant has further suffered great mental tension and there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. Further the acts of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice towards the complainant and in the end, the complainant prayed for withdrawal of illegal demand of Rs.58,910/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, pain and agony. The complainant also claimed Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence the complaint.

2.                Notice of the complainant was issued to opposite parties who put in appearance. The opposite parties filed joint written statement in which they have raised objections that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the amount demanded by the opposite parties is on account of theft of electricity committed by the complainant through fake meter. Further it is mentioned in the written statement that a checking vide LCR No.15/369 dated 19.10.2020 was conducted and it was reported that the complainant was found stealing energy through private meter as the said meter number was not tallying with the meter number mentioned in the SAP system of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. Accordingly, the OPs issued show cause notice No.753 dated 07.12.2020 under the provisions of Regulation 37 and Section 135 of the Electricity Act for theft of electricity. It is stated that the amount of Rs.52,886/- has been assessed on account of theft of electricity and Rs.3,000/- as compounding charges. However, the complainant failed to pay the said amount then the amount so demanded was debited in the account of the complainant. A bill dated 16.01.2021 of Rs.56,819/- was raised showing it to be sundry charges and net amount was worked out to be calculated as Rs.58,910/-. It was further alleged that since the complainant has committed theft of electricity through fake meter and as such, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The OPs further claimed that only Special Judge under the Electricity Act has powers to try and entertain such like disputes in which theft of electricity is involved. As such, the present complaint is barred due to lack of jurisdiction and is liable to be dismissed.

3.                On merits, it was admitted by the opposite parties that the electricity connection bearing account No.3001874270 was lying installed in the name of one Jarnail Singh. Further the factum of inspection dated 19.10.2020 and issuance of letter No.753 dated 07.12.2020, 20.10.2020 is also admitted. The opposite parties have further stated that as per the inspection reports, a connected load of 4.433 KW was found running against the sanctioned load of 0.5 KW and the letter No.634 dated 21.10.2020 was issued to pay the amount of Rs.3933/- for consumption of excess load. Even the opposite parties sent a letter dated 20.10.2020 Incharge Anti Power Theft, Ludhiana to register a case in this regard. The opposite parties submitted that the demand made by them qua the sundry charges in the bill dated 16.01.2021 is legal and genuine and is binding upon the complainant. It is further stated that there is no deficiency in services or any unfair trade practice on their part. It is a case of theft of electricity and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.                The complainant filed replication reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint and controverted those mentioned in the written statement filed by the opposite parties.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C9/2 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. Kanwalpreet Singh Sidhu, Additional SE, City West Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R6 and closed the evidence.  

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.      

 

 

7.                The following point of issue emerges out of the pleadings, evidence and contentions of the parties:-

(i)      Whether the demand notice dated 16.01.2021 of Rs.58,910/- including the sundry charges of Rs.56,819/- is as result of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties or the same is the demand made by the opposite parties due to theft of electricity?

8.                The complainant placed reliance of FIR No.380 dated 22.10.2020 registered under Section 379 of IPC at Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana (Ex. C2) got registered by the complainant stating that the original electricity meter installed outside his residence has been stolen and it has been replaced with some other meter by some unknown person.

9.                On the other hand, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that an inspection was got conducted and LCR No.15/369 dated 19.10.2020 was prepared and it was found that the complainant was found stealing energy through private meter and the meter number was not tallying with the SAP system of the opposite parties. On the next date i.e. 20.10.2020 in continuation of the said inspection another checking was made. It was also noticed that the connected load of the complainant was 4.433 KW as against the sanctioned load of 0.5 KW. Accordingly, by invoking the provisions of Electricity Act, loss due to theft was electricity was provisionally assessed and a demand of Rs.52,886/-  along with Rs.3,000/- as compounding charges were made.

10.              It can also be noticed that the meter i running in the name of one Jarnail Singh and the averments in the FIR are hard to believe as it cannot be presumed by any stretch of imagination that a thief will substitute a meter after stealing the original one. So, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Rather the documents produced by the opposite parties clearly establishes “the unauthorized use of electricity” by the complainant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case title U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others Vs Anis Ahmad 2013(5) Law Herald-3802 has held that a case of indulgence in “unauthorized use of electricity” by the complainant as defined in clause B of explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003is a quasi judicial decision and it does not fall within the meaning of “consumer dispute.” As such, the present complaint against the assessment or against the offences committed against under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission and jurisdiction to try and entertain such complaint is barred.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Harbans Singh Vs PSPCL                                    CC/21/71

Present:       Sh. Narinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.