Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/239

Kamni Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Neena Gupta ADv.

07 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 239 of 22.03.2016

Date of Decision            :   07.02.2017

Kamni Rani wife of Shri Munish, resident of House No.1332, Ram Street, Ram Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/M.D.

2.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City West Division, Ludhiana through its XEN. 

Opposite parties

 

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :        Ms.Neena Gupta, Advocate

For OPs                          :        Sh.Yashbir Choudhary, Advocate 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant purchased property bearing No.B-I-1405 measuring 125 Sq.yards situate at Ram Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana vide sale deed bearing Wasika No.7361 dated 6.8.2015. An electric connection bearing account No.3001877053 was lying installed in this property in the name of Sh.Pawan Kumar husband of Nirmala Rani @ Nirmal Mittal, from whom, the complainant purchased the property. After purchase, the complainant started paying the electricity bills, despite the fact that she has not shifted her residence in the said property. Average amount of the bills used to be sent in between Rs.700/- to Rs.800/-. All of a sudden, on 01.02.2016, the complainant received telephonic call from the officials of Ops, who disclosed that as per the policy of Ops, the electric meter is to be shifted outside the house. On giving of time of next day by the complainant, officials of Ops visited the property of complainant and they brought new meter with them. Complainant was disclosed as if meter installed inside to be shifted outside and nothing more to be done. It is claimed that  in view of this shifting, there was no need of bringing the new electric meter. When the complainant enquired about this from the officials of Ops, then they disclosed that the meter already installed is old one and same to be replaced with new one. Complainant, an illiterate lady believed the above representation of the officials of Ops as true. Signatures of complainant were obtained by the officials of Ops on various blank papers/forms/printed proformas etc. Officials of Ops reinstalled the meter inside the house. Complainant suspected some foul play. Thereafter, complainant was shocked to receive notice dated 8.3.2016 from OP1, in which, false allegations were levelled qua seals of the meter lying broken. Even in that notice, it was mentioned that there was tampering in the figures. It is claimed that no checking of the meter was done in the presence of complainant and nor she was called for checking of the meter in the ME lab. Consent of the complainant of such checking not obtained. In notice dated 8.3.2016, penalty of Rs.90,817/- was imposed. Complainant was given 15 days of time to deposit the same. However, the officials of Ops started putting pressure upon the complainant for depositing the amount without waiting of period of 15 days and as such, complainant had to deposit Rs.90,817/- with Ops vide cheque No.020063 dated 18.3.2016 drawn on Allahabad Bank, SSIF Branch, Ludhiana. Connection was restored on 19.3.2016. Complainant claims that she is not aware of tampering with the meter at all till date, because she after purchase has not entered in the property. By pleading deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to refund the amount of Rs.90,817/- along with interest. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1 lac and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- more claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complaint is not maintainable because consumer was caught red handed while stealing energy through the above referred meter. This meter was packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant. Even complainant gave consent letter for checking the meter in the ME Lab in her absence. After checking, it was found that all the four seals of the meter were tampered       and the slit of the counter bear scratches. That shows as if the consumer was    stealing the energy by approaching the disc and figures. Consumer was hiding the actual electricity consumption. From the facts and figures, it is made out that owing to stealing of energy, case falls under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. In view of that genuine notice was issued for putting forth the demand of Rs.90,817/-. In all the consumer was asked to pay Rs.1,14,817/-. This forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter because the same can be decided by the designated Court, constituted under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. Besides, the complaint alleged to be false and frivolous. Complaint filed with motive of pressurizing the Ops to withdraw the notice. Further, it is claimed that consumer was asked to pay Rs.90,817/- on account of charges of electricity, but Rs.24,000/- on account of compounding charges because case falls  under the category  of  theft.  Admittedly, on telephonic call, complainant gave time of next day, due to which, officials of Ops visited the property at the settled time on 02.02.2017. Officials of Ops already brought a new meter along with them. Removal of earlier meter took place after checking by the officials of Ops. Removed meter was sealed and packed in the presence of representative of complainant and thereafter, the complainant gave consent letter to the department for checking the meter in ME Lab in her absence. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied except qua deposit of Rs.90,817/- with Ops through cheque.

3.                Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, her counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Sanjeev Parbhakar, Senior Executive Engineer, City West Division(Special) along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and then closed evidence.

5.                Written arguments have not been submitted by any of the parties, but only oral arguments were addressed and heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for the complainant that notice dated 8.3.2016 Ex.C1=Ex.R2 was illegally issued because the complainant after purchase of the property has not entered in the premises, where the meter in question was lying installed. Rather, it is claimed that the officials of Ops disclosed as if the meter lying inside the house to be shifted. However, new meter installed, despite the fact that there was no need for installation of new one is also the contention of counsel for the complainant. All these submissions advanced by counsel for the complainant has no force because perusal of Ex.R3 to Ex.R5 reveals that present is a case of theft. Four seals of the meter were found tampered with on checking. It was also found  through Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 that owing to tampering of the                    seals, the electricity consumed by connecting wires and disc and tampering of the figures  even done. It has been clearly mentioned in Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 that it is a   case of theft of electricity. The Store Challan Ex.R4 is of date 3.3.2016 and memo Ex.R5 of 3.3.2016 discloses those facts. Sealing of the removed meter was done in the presence of the complainant and thereafter, she submitted her consent Ex.R6 to the effect that the meter may be checked in the ME Lab in her absence. Through Ex.R6, complainant undertook that whatever will be result of ME Lab test, the same will be acceptable to her. That test conducted and report Ex.R4 qua tampering was submitted by ME Lab. So, certainly it is a case of theft of electricity. Prime aim of the complainant is to challenge the memo Ex.C1=Ex.R2, vide which, she was called upon to deposit Rs.90,817/- within 15 days. So, other allegations levelled just for concocting up story, so that complainant may get rid of her action of committing theft of electricity, on account of which, notice Ex.C1=Ex.R2 was issued on her.

7.                If through notice Ex.C1=Ex.R2, complainant was called upon to deposit penalty amount of Rs.90,817/- within 7 days and the complainant deposited the same on 8.3.2016 through receipt Ex.C2, then this doesn’t mean that the complainant was compelled to pay this amount. Rather, a person committing theft of electricity, liable for paying the amount of penalty, failing which, to suffer action of disconnection. Present is a case of theft of electric energy, so jurisdiction of this Forum is barred to entertain this complaint. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down in case U.P.Power Corporation Limited and others vs. Anis Ahmad-2013(5) Law Herald-3802(Hon’ble Supreme Court of India). Ratio of this case lays that for an unauthorized use of electricity by the consumer, assessment to be made by the Assessing Officer under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Further, as per ratio of this case, complaint against the assessment or against the offences committed under sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. Rather, it is laid down in the above cited case as well in case of Kapoor Singh vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others-2015(2)RCR(Civil)-891(Punjab & Haryana High Court) that for offences referred in Sections 135 to 140 , jurisdiction of special court constituted under section 153(2) of Electricity Act is exclusive. As jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is especially barred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of U.P.Power Corporation Limited and others vs. Anis Ahmed(Supra) in respect of theft cases and the assessment made qua the unauthorized use of electricity and as such, this complaint before this Forum is not maintainable, particularly when theft of electricity was found committed by the complainant on checking on account of tampering with wires and disc. Four seals of the meter even were found tampered.  

8.                In case, FIR has not been got registered by the Ops, then the same is no ground for holding that it is not a case of theft of electricity. Report of ME lab referred above discloses the commission of theft of electric energy and as such, certainly case falls under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Complainant has not disclosed as to on which papers her signatures obtained and as such, story in    this regard is not believable at all. Fifteen days period for deposit was given and if deposit made before that period, then the same cannot be taken as ground for holding that due period of deposit was not provided to the complainant.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                           President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:07.02.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.