DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  320

                                                Instituted on:    11.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       04.10.2017

Durlabh Singh Sidhu son of Late Gamdoor Singh R/O Lehra, Tehsil Lehra, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Lehra through its SDO/AEE.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri K.S.Sidhu, Advocate.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Durlabh Singh Sidhu, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the father of the complainant, Shri Gamdoor Singh obtained an electricity connection bearing account number S77CB4806625K at his residence and after his death the complainant being the beneficiary has been using the electricity connection in question and paying the electricity bills regularly to the OPs.

2.             The complainant is aggrieved on receiving a bill dated 8.6.2017 whereby the Ops have charged an amount of Rs.39,785/- on account of sundry charges, which is said to be wrong and illegal, as no prior notice was served upon the complainant before raising the such a huge demand.  Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the Ops and requested to withdraw the demand of Rs.39,785/- raised vide bill dated 8.6.2017, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to quash the demand of Rs.39785/- raised vide bill dated 8.6.2017 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.57,000/-.

3.             In reply of the complaint, the opposite parties have taken legal objections on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as the matter in dispute relates to theft of electricity as notice under section 135 of the Electricity Act has been issued. On merits, it is admitted that the father of the complainant namely Shri Gamdoor Singh obtained the electricity connection in question.  The case of the OPs is that an amount of Rs.39,785/- has rightly been demanded on account of sundry charges in the bill dated 8.6.2017 as old meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO number 22/22029 dated 5.5.2016 by Nirmal Singh, JE and old meter was duly packed and sealed in the cardboard box and paper seal dated 5.5.2016 was affixed over the same. Thereafter the complainant was called to appear before the ME laboratory, be he did not appear despite serving of three notices dated 10.10.2016, 12.1.2017 and 23.2.2017, so the meter was opened and checked and found that out of the two ME seals, one was tampered and other was missing, Turns of CT of the meter were disconnected, as such it was declared to be a case of theft of electricity and it was recommended that action be taken against the complainant under section 135 of the Electricity Act along with other rules and regulations.  As such, the demand of Rs.39785/- raised under section 135 of the Electricity Act against the complainant is said to be justified.    The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 affidavits and copies of bills and documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant being a beneficiary of the connection is a consumer of the OPs by using the electricity connection bearing account number S77CB4806625K for domestic purposes.  In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 8.6.2017 whereby the Ops have raised a demand of Rs.39,785/- on account of sundry charge.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended vehemently that the demand is without any basis and should be withdrawn being without any basis. On the  other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the old meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO number 22/22029 dated 5.5.2016 by Shri Nirmal Singh, JE and old meter was duly packed and sealed in the cardboard box and paper seal number 568 dated 5.5.2016 was affixed over the same. Thereafter the complainant was called to appear before the ME laboratory, be he did not appear despite serving of three notices dated 10.10.2016, 12.1.2017 and 23.2.2017, so the meter was opened and checked and found that out of the two ME seals, one was tampered and other was missing, Turns of CT of the meter were disconnected, as such it was declared to be a case of theft of electricity and accordingly notice under section  135 of the Electricity Act along with other rules and regulations was issued to the complainant whereby he was advised to deposit an amount of Rs.39,785/-.  As such, the demand of Rs.39785/- raised under section 135 of the Electricity Act against the complainant is said to be justified.   The learned counsel for the Ops has further contended that since it is a case of theft of electricity, as such, this forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. We have further perused the notice issued under section 135, Ex.OP-6 and find that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. And others versus Anis Ahmad, Appeal No.5466 of 2012, decided on 1.7.2013, wherein the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred is fully applicable. We have also perused the averments of the complaint, version of the OPs and found that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. As such, we find that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent court of law/Forum for the redressal of his grievance, if he so desired. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        October 4, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

                                                       (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                  Member