BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 203

Date of Institution : 1.7.2010

Date of Decision : 11.11.2010

Darshan Lal aged about 55 years s/o Babu Ram resident of Jatinder Chownk, Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

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

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) City 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 charging the amount of Rs. 30,807/- vide letter No. 808 dated 24.6.2010 to the complainant account No. MS 91/0237 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said notice 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 he is consumer of the opposite parties having domestic electric connection Account No. MS 91/0237 running in the premises of the complainant in the name of Grandfather of the complainant who has since been expired. He received letter No. 808 dated 24.6.2010 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which the demand of Rs. 30,807/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking of dated 18.6.2010 by AAE on account of theft of energy. No copy of alleged checking report was ever been supplied to the complainant not even with the letter of demand inspite of the fact note regarding attachment of copy is given on the checking report. The complainant never committed any theft of energy. The meter at the premises of the complainant was installed by the opposite party about 25 years back. It is denied that he tampered the seals of the meter. The alleged checking has been done by AAE who is not competent authority to check the connection as per notification of State Government under the law. On receipt of said letter he immediately visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and inquired about the amount demanded by the opposite party. He requested the opposite party No. 2 to supply the copy of alleged checking report but no copy of the alleged checking report was supplied to the complainant, rather the opposite party No. 2 threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant, 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 2.7.2010 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 true facts are that the domestic connection of the complainant bearing Account No. MS 91/0237 located in Jatinder Marg, Faridkot was checked by the Task Force headed by Er. Rajinder Kumar AAE of City Sub Division, Faridkot alongwith other staff on 18.6.2010 in the presence of the complainant. Single phase meter with meter reading 5326 was installed in the premises of the complainant. During the course of checking it was found that the complainant was committing theft of energy by illegal means by tampering with two number ME seals of the energy meter. Meter was not found installed in the MCB. It was declared a case of theft of energy under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of the complainant and was duly signed by AAE and the other staff present at the time of checking. The complainant refused to sign the same. Copy of checking report was supplied to the complainant alongwith the notice of demand. The complainant has not come forward with any reply to the demand notices issued to him demanding amount of compensation, so the present complaint is premature. It is further averred that the connection in question is not running in the name of the complainant nor he ever applied for change of name of the above said connection in his name by completing all the formalities and depositing requisite documents with the opposite parties, so he has no right to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the connection is running in the name of one Bhag Mal. The demand of Rs. 30,807/- has been rightly raised on account of theft of energy as per checking report dated 18.6.2010 of the Task Force. The demand is based on instructions and rules of the department. The complainant was well aware that he was indulging in theft of energy by illegal means and was liable to pay compensation on account of theft of energy 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 his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of notice No. 808 Ex.C-2, copies of bills Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, receipt No. 50 Ex.C-5, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Prit Pal Sandhu Ex.R-1, checking report dated 18.6.2010 Ex.R-2, notice No. 808 Ex.R-3, affidavit of Rajinder Kumar AAE Ex.R-4, affidavit of Narayan Dass JE Ex.R-5, calculation sheet Ex.R-6 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file.

8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case is that the action of the opposite party in charging Rs. 30,807/- vide letter dated 24.6.2010 Ex.C-2 allegedly on the ground of theft based on checking report dated 18.6.2010 Ex.R-2 is illegal and unlawful. According to him, in fact no checking in the presence of the complainant was made. Remarks as to the refusal by the complainant to sign the checking report are not supported by requirement under the procedure for pasting of notice and forwarding of checking report to the complainant by way of RC. It is further argued that the alleged checking is stated to have been made by AAE (JE) of the opposite parties who is unauthorized to check the electric connection in view of the notification issued by the Punjab Government under Section 135 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in this respect. He also argued that remarks as to tampering of seals in the checking report Ex.R-2 by themselves are inconclusive. Non production of electric meter in the Forum further causes suspicion as to the alleged checking.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that as per remarks on the bottom of demand notice Ex.C-2 copy of checking report was supplied to the complainant. It is further argued that in the concluding part of para 4 of the written statement on merits there is clear mention of supply of copy to the complainant alongwith notice of demand dated 24.6.2010. It is further argued that otherwise also complainant is not consumer as the electricity connection is in the name of grandfather of the complainant. Complainant did not get transferred the connection in his name in the records of the opposite parties, so he cannot be treated as beneficiary of the services provided by the opposite parties. In support judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Hari Prasad Versus MUHBVNL Panchkula and Ors 2010 (2) CLT-558 has been relied upon. It is also argued that JE is authorized to check the connection in question as per commercial circulars No. 34/2006 dated 6.7.2006 and 53/2006 dated 17.10.2006. Moreover, the complainant did not challenge the demand notice in the requisite period of 7 days. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to turn around and challenged the demand notice whereby amount of Rs. 30,807/- had been charged.

10. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. Charging of amount in question by the opposite parties vide their letter dated 24.6.2010 Ex.C-2 has been supported by checking report Ex.R-2 prepared by AAE, However, AAE (JE) is not authorized under the notification issued by the Punjab Government dated 21^st January, 2005 under Section 135 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Commercial circulars relied upon by opposite parties as also referred to above in the relevant submissions aforesaid cannot be said to be supplementary as they have not been issued by way of notification by following the procedure prescribed under the Act and as such they cannot be taken note of. Otherwise also, no procedure in this case has been followed to lend credence to the checking report by not pasting copy of the checking report on conspicuous part of the premises where the electricity meter stands installed nor any such checking report was sent to the complainant by post in a situation where allegations of refusal to sign the checking report has been leveled. As per the remarks in the checking report Ex.R-2 consumer was found to have tampered M&T seals of electric meter in question and nothing more. No ME Lab report as to slow and improper functioning of the meter in question has been obtained for definite conclusion that in the stated manner complainant had access to the internal mechanism of the electric device. Surprisingly enough, electric device was not produced in the Forum to demonstrate interference therein to control the functioning of the electric meter. Mere fact of writing under demand notice as to the copy of the checking report as enclosure is not sufficient to support the stand of the opposite parties that copy of checking report was in fact sent by them to the complainant.

In so far as the question of complainant not being consumer and the beneficiary by virtue of use of electricity through the meter installed in his premises, in our considered opinion complainant cannot be said to be not a beneficiary. In this case in the notice Ex.C-2 name of the complainant is mentioned by use of letters C/o. He has also brought on file payment receipt Ex.C-5. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is not beneficiary of the connection in question. Ruling of Hari Parsad supra relied upon by the opposite parties is not attracted to the present situation as in that case complaint was filed by Hari Parsad alias Harish Kumar son of Sh. Sat Pal Aggarwal alleging that Account No. JC/20/1182 is in the name of Anil Garg, his brother but here the position is different. Connection is admittedly in the name of the Grandfather of the complainant and no other legal heirs has come forward to stake claim qua the power connection in question.

11. In view of our above observations and findings, theft of electricity in the present case has not been proved by the opposite parties on the basis of the checking report prepared by an unauthorized official in contravention of the procedure prescribed for the purpose. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant Darshan Lal is partly accepted with a direction to the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal and unlawful charges of Rs. 30,807/- raised vide letter No. 808 dated 24.6.2010 alongwith all the surcharges if any, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Any amount, if already deposited by the complainant with regard to above mentioned charges of Rs. 30,807/- raised vide letter No. 808 dated 24.6.2010 with the opposite parties, be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in his next bills. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 11.11.2010

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