DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 277 of 29-06-2010

Decided on : 16-11-2010

Rajinder Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o Village Bhagta Bhaika, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation through its Executive Engineer/Division, Sub Division Bhagta Bhai Ka.

2. S.D.O. P.S.E.B. Sub Division, Bhagta Bhaika, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.

3. Atma Ram, Lineman/J.E. Sub Division Bhagta Bhaika, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.

    

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Sudagar Singh, counsel for the complainant.

For the Opposite parties : Sh. R.D. Goyal, counsel for the

opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant had applied for electric connection and paid Rs. 1590/- as security vide receipt No. 342 dated 16-02-2010 with the opposite parties. The complainant approached the opposite parties many times for the installation of the connection, but to no effect. On 20-03-2010 Atma Ram, Lineman/J.E. Employee of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 met the complainant and told him that electric meters were out of stock and told that he would arrange the same and then get it installed in the premises of the complainant and in lieu of this, he demanded Rs. 5,000/- as illegal gratification. The settlement was made at Rs. 3500/- out of which complainant paid Rs. 2,000/- in advance and agreed to pay Rs. 1500/- later on. On 20-03-2010, the said Atma Ram i.e. opposite party No. 3 released the electricity through direct wire at the shop of the complainant but he did not install the electric meter and demanded the balance amount of Rs. 1500/-. On 6-6-2010 Atma Ram, opposite party No. 3 himself disconnected the direct wire and threatened the complainant that he would falsely implicate the complainant in the case of theft of energy and as such, the alleged checking was done by the opposite parties in connivance with each other in order to save the skin of said Atma Ram. The complainant received memo No. 391 dated 17-06-2010 issued by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 raising a demand of Rs. 15,549/- from the complainant. The complainant has alleged that neither the checking was done in his presence nor his signatures were obtained at the time of alleged checking. The demand of Rs. 15,549/- was raised by the opposite parties on the basis of alleged checking dated 7-6-2010.

2. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant did not approach the officials of the opposite parties after depositing the security because it was told to the complainant that connection would be installed/issued to the complainant on availability of material and as per his turn. The complainant has concocted the false story only to show deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have further pleaded that they have rightly issued memo No. 391 dated 17-06-2010 to the complainant as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties. The checking was conducted by the officials of the opposite parties on 7-6-2010 in the presence of the complainant but he refused to sign the checking report. At the time of checking, the complainant was found using electricity directly from main supply in his shop without sanction of the connection. Thus, case of theft of electricity has been prepared against the complainant and his connection was disconnected immediately.

3. The opposite party No. 3 in his separate written statement pleaded that the complainant has applied for getting electric connection and deposited requisite security of Rs. 1590/-. Thereafter, the complainant has never approached opposite party No. 3. The complainant has concocted a false story only to defame the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 has not installed the connection directly to the shop of the complainant at any time and had never demanded any money from the complainant. The opposite party No. 3 has further pleaded that news cutting has no value as this news has been published at the instance of the complainant after checking of his illegal connection with malafide intention to save himself because checking was made on 7-6-2010 and news was published on 24-6-2010.

4. The parties have led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. We have heard the arguments at length and have gone through the record and perused written submissions submitted by the parties.

6. The complainant had deposited Rs. 1590/- as security for installation of new electric connection in his shop on 16-2-2010 vide Ex. C-3. The opposite parties have not installed the electric meter in his premises till date. A checking has been conducted vide Ex. R-4 on 7-6-2010. It has been written in the checking report that consumer was using direct supply in his shop, hence, it is a case of theft. It has been further written on this checking report in the column of signatures of the complainant that he has refused to sign on this checking report. The complainant has applied for the electric connection on 16-2-2010 for his shop but the connection was not released to him and the opposite parties have conducted the alleged checking in the premises of the complainant on 7-6-2010 i.e. after a gap of about four months. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have stated in para No. 2 of their written reply that complainant did not approach the officials of the opposite parties after depositing the security because it was stated to the complainant that the connection will be installed/issued on the availability of material and as per his turn. The opposite parties have not placed any evidence on file to show that neither the material was available with the opposite parties nor the turn of the complainant has come for release of electric connection during the period from 16-02-2010 till 07-06-2010. Instead of releasing the connection to the complainant, the opposite parties prepared a checking report Ex. R-4 on which even the name of checking officer is not mentioned. In these circumstances, the checking report Ex. R-4 cannot be relied upon. Thus, the impugned memo issued on the basis of alleged checking dated 7-6-2010 is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the same.

7. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 500/- as cost against the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 3 and the memo No. 391 dated 17-6-2010 for the amount of Rs. 15,549/- is hereby quashed. The complainant has already deposited the security amount for the release of connection to the tune of Rs. 1590/- vide Ex. C-3. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to install the electric meter and release the electric connection to the complainant, after getting depositing the cost of the meter from the complainant, if any as per rules. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order

    

    

    

   .

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

     

Pronounced :

16-11-2010 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member