BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 129

Date of Institution : 11.5.2010

Date of Decision : 19.10.2010

Amarjit Kaur Sandhu aged about 67 years w/o Harpul Singh resident of Harindra Nagar, Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) Suburban Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., 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. M.S. Brar counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for illegal bill of Rs. 38,770/- issued on 27.3.2010 which includes Rs. 33,628/- of previous balance to the complainant Account No. HN 96/0105 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal bill and to restore the connection of the complainant and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she is consumer of the opposite parties having domestic electric connection Account No. HN 96/0105 running in the name of Arjan Singh since before partition of India in 1947. She was out of India and came back to India in November, 2009 and when visited the house at Faridkot the bill issued on 28.11.2009 of Rs. 30,348/- was handed over to the complainant by the Chowkidar of the house in which Rs. 27,067/- has been shown as arrears. The bill was issued by showing S code the connection of the complainant which was disconnected few months back. The bill dated 28.11.2009 was issued on 668 units on average basis. The complainant again received the bill issued on 27.3.2010 of meter status S of the connection was disconnected. This bill has been issued for Rs. 38,770/- which includes Rs. 33,628/- of balance. The bill has been issued of 1019 units. After receiving the bill complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 but no detail of the amount of the bill and no reason as to why the bill of disconnected connection has been issued, were given to the complainant. Thereafter, on seeing the record verbally it was told to the complainant that amount has been charged due to some checking by officials of the opposite party in the month of 7/2009 but no notice of the amount was given to the complainant. No checking by any official of the opposite party was done in the presence of the complainant or any authorized representative. The house of the complainant remained locked as the complainant was out of India and only Chowkidar remained there. Moreover, as per information of the complainant connection of the complainant was disconnected sometime in the month of 7/2009 but opposite parties are continuously issuing the bills by showing S code on average basis, 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 12.5.2010 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 true facts are that the premises of the complainant were checked by the Task Force headed by AEE Suburban Sub Division, PSPCL, Faridkot and Sh. Harbans Lal and Shivtar Singh Meter Inspectors on 17.7.2009 in the presence of the representatives of the complainant consisting of a Gardner and chowkidar available in the premises at the time of checking. At the time of checking electronic meter make Synergy capacity 10-40 AMP Sr. No. 921989 with meter reading at that time 8951 was found installed in the premises of the complainant but the electricity supply was being used directly from 2/C PVC coming to the energy meter, by taking it to the roof and by making a joint and inserting direct wires to the AC installed in the house. The artificial wires were also found connected with the motor and other load to pilferage energy by bypassing the energy meter in an illegal and dishonest way. Sanctioned load as per record was 0.63 KW whereas 3.373 KW load was found running at the time of checking. As theft of energy was taking place in the premises of the complainant at the time of checking, therefore, notice of demand No. 3077 dated 17.7.2009 was issued to the complainant raising demand of Rs. 24236/- on account of compensation of theft of energy and charges for unauthorized increase in the sanctioned load but the amount was not paid by the complainant or her representatives and ultimately the amount was charged in the bill but that was also not deposited by the complainant. The connection in this case is running in the name of Arjan Singh and complainant never applied for getting the connection changed in her name by furnishing all the requisite documents as per instructions and requirement of the department. So, she is not consumer of the opposite parties as she is not related to said Arjan Singh. On merits, it was alleged among other things that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. Theft of energy was taking place in the premises in question at the time of checking by the Task Force. No record of outstanding bills is maintained in the office of Senior Xen. Any connection can be checked by the authorized officials of the department at any time irrespective of whether the consumer is available in the house or not. Checking report was prepared at the spot which was duly signed by the AEE Suburban Sub Division, Faridkot and both the Meter Inspectors namely Harbans Lal and Shivtar Singh. Copy of checking report was also supplied to the representatives of the complainant but they refused to sign the same. As regards issuance of any bill during the period the meter was not at site, the same are to be adjusted as and when the complainant comes to deposit the amount of outstanding bills including the amount of compensation and unauthorized load charged in the bill. 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 her affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-3, copy of passport Ex.C-4 and closed her evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Kamaljit Singh AEE Ex.R-1, notice No. 3077 Ex.R-2, checking report dated 17.7.2009 Ex.R-3, affidavit of Harbans Lal Meter Inspector Ex.R-4, affidavit of Shivtar Singh Ex.R-5, affidavit of Bhupinder Kumar AEE Ex.R-6, calculation sheet Ex.R-7 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. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case is that the opposite parties have raised illegal bill of Rs. 38,770/- issued on 27.3.2010 Ex.C-3 containing Rs. 33,628/- as previous balance qua the account number of the complainant allegedly on the ground of theft on the basis of checking report dated 17.7.2009 Ex.R-3. He further contended that the alleged checking was not made in the presence of the complainant because in view of photocopy of passport Ex.C-4 she was away to abroad. Refusal of alleged menial staff has been recorded only with a view to lend credence to the false checking as no notice was pasted regarding checking on the conspicuous place on the premises of the complainant nor registered notice was sent to the complainant in this regard. No copy of checking report Ex.R-2 even was supplied to the complainant. Still further, checking in this case is made by MI who is not authorized person. Pleadings and affidavit are contrary to each other where checking by AEE has been shown. No independent witness was joined to lend credence to the alleged checking.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that electricity connection in question is in the name of one Arjan Singh. Complainant has not disclosed how she is connected with said Arjan Singh and as to how and in what manner she is beneficiary. In this way, complainant is not connected with the premises in question. As per the learned counsel for the opposite parties this checking was made by AE in the presence of Mali and Sewadar working in the premises in question but they refused to sign the checking report. Remarks in this respect can be seen at the appropriate place in the checking report Ex.R-3. According to learned counsel for the opposite parties calculation statement Ex.R-7 has been correctly prepared in support of the demand raised in this case. In support of contention that mere use of electricity used through the connection standing in the name of a dead person cannot confer the status of the consumer of the opposite parties. Heavy reliance has been placed upon judgment of Hon'ble National Commission Hari Prasad Versus MUHBVNL Panchkula & Ors. 2010(2) CLT-558 and of Chhattisgarh State Commission, Raipur Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and Ors. Versus Goverdhan Prasad Dhurandhar 2010(2) CLT-115.

10. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record and have found that in this case bill with impugned amount of previous balance has been raised on the basis of theft of energy by the complainant. In para 1 of the complaint it is alleged by the complainant that she is consumer of the opposite parties having domestic electric connection bearing Account No. HN 96/0105 running in the name of Arjan Singh prior to partition of India in 1947. Since connection is running in the premises of the complainant and she is using the same and paying the bills so she is consumer. Surprisingly, no material whatsoever has been brought on record by the complainant to at least connect herself with the premises in which the electricity device stands installed. There is nothing in her complaint that she had purchased the premises from said Arjan Singh or his heirs/successors. In Hari Prasad case supra it was noted by the Hon'ble National Commission that electricity connection was in the name of A but it was being used by H. Except for bare averments in the complaint in this respect and that complainant is beneficiary of the said connection, no other material to sustain the claim was brought on record. The complainant did not get connection transferred in her name in the record of the respondents so it was held that complainant cannot be treated as beneficiary of the services provided by the opposite parties. In Goverdhan Prasad Dhurandhar case also it was held by Chhattisgarh State Commission , Raipur that mere use of electricity already used through the connection standing in the name of a dead person cannot confer the status of the consumer on the complaint. In our considered opinion in the absence of any material complainant has failed to prove herself to be consumer of the opposite parties.

11. Theft of energy in this case has been proved on the basis of checking report Ex.R-3 which has been proved by Harbans Lal MI by way of his duly sworn affidavit Ex.R-4. He has stated in his aforesaid affidavit that the premises of the complainant was checked by Er. Bhupinder Singh AEE Sub urban Sub Division, Faridkot now AEE Operation sub division, Bajakhanna alongwith the deponent and another Meter Inspector Shivtar Singh on 17.7.2009 in the presence of the representatives of the complainant consisting of a Gardner and the Chowkidar. At the time of checking electronic meter make Synergy capacity 10-40 AMP Sr. No. 921989 with meter reading as 8951 was found installed in the premises of the complainant but the electricity supply was being used directly from 2/C PVC coming to the energy meter by tapping it on the roof and by making a joint and inserting direct wires to the AC installed in the house. Artificial wire was also connected with the motor and other load to pilferage by bypassing the energy meter in an illegal and dishonest way. Sanctioned load was 0.63 KW whereas the 3.373 KW load was found running at the time of checking. However, representatives of the complainant as aforesaid refused to sign the checking report though they were shown the position obtaining at the spot but they did not raise any objections in this regard. No appreciable difference is found in the pleadings and the affidavit filed by the opposite parties. Complainant has not denied he deployment of Mali and Chowkidar in the premises where the electricity meter in question stands installed. No allegations against concerned officer in the rank of AEE has been raised. No enmity or ill will of said officers towards the complainant is either alleged or proved.

12. In view of our above observations not only the theft of energy in the manner as proved by the concerned official is proved but it has also been proved that the complainant has not been able to produce material to prove herself to be consumer of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint filed by her is totally devoid of any merits and as such the same is dismissed. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 19.10.2010

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