DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 83
Instituted on: 06.03.2017
Decided on: 20.06.2017
Rachmail Singh aged about 55 years son of Dalip Singh, resident of Village Maholi Kalan, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman/Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Rural-2, Ahmedgarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Vinay Jindal, Advocate.
For opposite parties : Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Rachmail Singh, 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 complainant is a consumer of the OPs by taking DS electricity connection bearing account number U54ML350222Y at his residence and has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the OPs.
2. The complainant is aggrieved on receiving notice number 72 dated 18.01.2017 whereby the Ops have raised a demand of Rs.13,545/- on account of previous balance relating to the year 2010 and the Ops have further mentioned in the notice that the special audit team of the Ops have checked the account of the complainant and found that an amount of Rs.13,545/- is outstanding towards the complainant. As such, the complainant immediately approached the OP number 2 and requested to withdraw the demand, 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.13,545/- raised vide notice number 72 dated 18.1.2017 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
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 not come to the Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs under electricity connection in question. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was using the domestic supply connection as NRS one i.e. for a shuttering shop which come within the definition of unauthorised use of electricity and the same is covered under section 126 of the Electricity Act and the jurisdiction of the Forum is barred. It is further admitted that the Ops issued notice dated 18.1.2017 demanding an amount of Rs.13,545/- as per audit report dated 29.12.2016. It is stated further that the connection of the complainant was checked by Pal Singh JE along with Jasbir Singh on 13.2.2010 and found that the consumer was using the DS supply for shuttering shop, which is a NRS supply. The complainant was using the electricity for other purpose than he was authorised so the case is covered under the unauthorised use of electricity which deals under section 126 of the Electricity Act under which the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred. 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-17 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-7 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 is a consumer of the OPs by using the electricity connection bearing account number U54ML350222Y for domestic purposes. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the notice in question dated 18.1.2017 and has filed the present complaint challenging the demand of Rs.13,545/- on account of previous balance of the year 2010 and the same has been raised in view of the audit report of special audit team. The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended vehemently that the demand is without any basis and should be withdrawn being old one. The complainant has mentioned in his affidavit Ex.C-1 that he started his shop of shuttering in the month of March, 2010 at village Maholi Kalan and the complainant was not doing the shop of shuttering on 13.2.2010 and further has filed affidavits of Avtar Singh Ex. Sarpanch Ex.C-2 and of Surat Singh Panch Ex.C-3 that he was not doing the shop of shuttering till 13.2.2010. But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the complainant and supporting witnesses as no other cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence has been produced on record, such as, bills of shuttering material etc or any other conclusive proof to support the contention of the complainant.
7. It is also an admitted fact that the OPs have issued a notice number 72 dated 18.1.2017, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5, whereby the Ops have raised a demand of Rs.13,545/- on the ground that the audit party detected that the complainant was using the DS connection as NRS connection, meaning thereby he making the use of unauthorised electricity. The learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint as the case in hand covers under the column unauthorised use of electricity under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which depicts that as per the provisions of section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, the unauthorised use of electricity means usage of electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised. The present case covers under this clause as the complainant obtained a domestic electricity connection, whereas he was using the same for NRS purposes by opening a shop of shuttering. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not obtain the NRS connection prior to opening the shop of shuttering. In the circumstances, we find no case made out of any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Since it is a case of unauthorised use of electricity, we find that 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 deicide the present complaint. As such, we find that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum.
8. 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 so desired. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
June 20, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
