BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 71 of 2008 Instituted On: 17.06.2008 Date of Service: 10.07.2008 Decided On: 11.09.2008 Chamkaur Singh (aged 50 years) son of Mukhtiar Singh, residentof VPO: Rode, Tehsil: Bagha Purana, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electrcity Board, Bagha Purana. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban, Bagha Purana. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member. Present: Sh.R.K.Sharma, Adv.counsel for complainant. Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv. counsel for the OPs. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Chamkaur Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary and others-opposite parties (herein-after referred to as Board) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.18900/- raised vide bill dated 26.5.2008 and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Chamkaur Singh complainant is a consumer of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.AR51/0253F installed at his residential premises having sanctioned load of 3.62 KW. That the complainant has been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden, he received a memos no.961 and 970 dated 24.3.2008 and thereafter bill dated 26.5.2008 in which the OPs-Board demanded Rs.18900/- on account of theft of energy. That the said demand is altogether illegal, unjust, void at law and against the rules and regulations of the PSEB. That the complainant never committed any theft of energy. That the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board time and again and requested to withdraw the impugned amount, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.10000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.S.K.Dhir Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum and that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint. In fact, on 06.03.2008 Sh.Amarjit Singh Brar SDO PSEB Sub Urban Bagha Purana checked the residential premises of the complainant and found him using the electricity by illegal means i.e. by stealing the electricity by bye-passing the meter and fixing the direct wire. The meter was not recording the consumption at the spot. That the checking was conducted in the presence Manpreet Singh representative of the complainant who duly signed the checking report. Thus, it was a case of theft of energy. Thereafter, notice no.961 and 970 dated 24.3.2008 were issued to the complainant demanding Rs.18900/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 on account of theft of energy. But the complainant did not pay the same. Thereafter, the impugned demand was added in the consumption bill of the complainant dated 26.5.2008 to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. On merits, the OPs-Board took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of bills Ex.A2 to Ex.A6, copies of notices Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 and closed his evidence. 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Damanjit Singh Toor Sr.XEN, affidavit Ex.R2 of Sh. Amarjeet Singh, SDO, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4 and closed their evidence. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.R.K.Sharma ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.K.Dhir ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 7. Sh.R.K.Sharma, ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.18900/- raised vide notice no.961 and 970 dated 24.3.2008 and thereafter adding the same in consumption bill dated 26.5.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in theft of energy. 8. On the other hand, Sh.S.K.Dhir ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that in fact on 06.03.2008 Sh.Amarjit Singh Brar SDO PSEB Sub Urban Bagha Purana checked the residential premises of the complainant and found him using the electricity by illegal means i.e. by stealing the electricity by bye-passing the meter and fixing the direct wire. It was averred that the meter was not recording the consumption at the spot. The checking was conducted in the presence Manpreet Singh representative of the complainant who duly signed the checking report and it was a case of theft of energy. Thereafter, notice no.961 and 970 dated 24.3.2008 were issued to the complainant demanding Rs.18900/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 on account of theft of energy. But the complainant did not pay the same. Thereafter, the impugned demand was added in the consumption bill of the complainant dated 26.5.2008 to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has full force. Admittedly, on 6.3.2008 the premise of the complainant was checked by Sh.Amarjit Singh SDO of the OPs-Board who found him committing the theft of energy in the aforesaid manners. The checking was conducted in the presence of Manpreet Singh representative of the complainant who duly signed the checking report Ex.R3. Thereafter, notices no. 961 and 970 dated 24.3.2008 were issued to the complainant demanding Rs.18900/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 on account of theft of energy. In the instant case, the OPs-Board had issued the notice of provisional assessment for unauthorized use of electricity in exercise of power under section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 asking the complainant to give its reply within 7 days. But the complainant has failed to file any reply against the same. Thus, the said notice has become the final order. 9. Moreover, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint because the only remedy available to the complainant is to file an appeal under section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 before the Appellant Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner/ Addl.Deputy Commissioner or Sub Divisional Magistrate as the case may be, against the orders of the Assessing Officer made under section 126 of the said Act. Hence, in view of the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 and circulars of the PSEB, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint on the allegations that the complainant was found committing theft of energy in aforesaid manners. 10. Furthermore, the charge of theft has been proved from the checking report Ex.R3. To further corroborate it, the OPs-Board have produced affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Damanjit Singh Toor Sr.XEN, affidavit Ex.R2 of Sh. Amarjeet Singh, SDO checking officer and copy of notice Ex.R4. 11. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not stealing the electricity except his own affidavit Ex.A1. There is no corroboration to his affidavit that he was not stealing the electricity by illegal means. Moreover, he has reason to give false affidavit in order to save himself from the consequences of being caught red handed while stealing the electricity by illegal means. Thus, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and we discard the same. 12. Further, the checking party had acted in accordance with rules and regulations issued by PSEB from time to time and in discharge of their official duties. They were supposed to do all their acts bonafidely and in good faith and without any malice or motive. The complainant has not alleged any ill-will or animus against them. They have no reason to make a wrong report against him. In view of these circumstances, we hold that on 26.5.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means. Thus, the impugned demand of Rs.18900/- made from the complainant on account of theft of energy by the OPs-Board was quite legal and valid and as per rules and instructions of the PSEB. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove if there was any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs-Board. 13. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order shall be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla) Member Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:11.09.2008. hrg*
