BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 52 of 2008 Instituted On: 16.05.2008 Date of Service: 05.06.2008 Decided On: 28.08.2008 Gurdev Kaur (aged 50 years) wife of Iqbal Singh, resident of village: Dala, Tehsil & Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Moga. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Badhni Kalan Distt.Moga. 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.K.K.Tiwari, Adv.counsel for complainant. Sh.Shivcharan Singh Gill, Adv. counsel for OPs. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Smt.Gurdev Kaur 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.45248/- raised vide bill dated 03.05.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, Smt.Gurdev Kaur complainant is a consumer of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.DF59/0059X installed at her residential premises having sanctioned load of 2.00 KW. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against her. That all of a sudden, she received a bill dated 03.05.2008 in which the OPs-Board demanded Rs.45248/- on account of sundry charges without assigning any reason. 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 her for which she has claimed Rs.20000/- 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.Shivcharan Singh Gill, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. In fact, on 23.02.2008 Tota Singh AJE alongwith other officials of the OPs-Board checked the residential premises of the complainant in presence of her family members and found the complainant stealing the electricity by artificial means i.e. by way of kundi connection from the joint of main service from the grip. Thereafter, memo no. 4591/92 dated 12.3.2008 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.45248/- on account of theft of energy as per section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, but the complainant did not pay the same. Thereafter, the impugned amount of Rs.45248/- has been included in her consumption bill dated 3.5.2008, to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover the same. On merits, the OPs-Board took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in 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 her case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.A1, copies of bills Ex.A2 to Ex.A6 and closed her evidence. 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.Executive Engineer, affidavit Ex.R2 of Tota Singh AJE, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4, copy of rules Ex.R5, copy of circular Ex.R6 and closed their evidence. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.K.K.Tiwari ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.Shivcharan Singh Gill ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 7. Sh.K.K.Tiwari ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.45248/- raised vide bill dated 03.05.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in theft of energy. 8. Sh.Shivcharan Singh Gill ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that on 23.02.2008 Tota Singh AJE alongwith other officials of the OPs-Board checked the residential premises of the complainant in presence of her family members and found the complainant stealing the electricity by artificial means i.e. by way of kundi connection from the joint of main service from the grip. Thereafter, memo no. 4591/92 dated 12.3.2008 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.45248/- on account of theft of energy as per section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has some force. Admittedly, on 23.02.2008 the premises of the complainant was checked by Sh.Tota Singh AJE and other officials of the OPs-Board who found her committing theft of energy in the aforesaid manners. To further strengthen the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the OPs-Board have produced affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.Executive Engineer, affidavit of Tota Singh AJE Ex.R2 of checking officer, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4, copy of rules Ex.R5, copy of circular Ex.R6. 9. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that she was not stealing the electricity except her own affidavit Ex.A1. There is no corroboration to her affidavit that she was not stealing the electricity by illegal means. Moreover, she has reason to give false affidavit in order to save herself 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. 10. Moreover, 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 her. In view of these circumstances, we hold that on 23.02.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means. 11. In case of fraudulent abstraction of energy this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint made by the complainant. On this point rulings cited IV (2003) Consumer Protection Judgements-376 South West Distribution Co.Ltd (BSES) Versus Inder Pal Thapar of Delhi State Commission, II (2004) Consumer Protection Judgements- 20 Puran Chand versus B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Limited & Anr. of Honble Delhi State Commission and 2006(3) The Punjab Law Reporter page 14 titled as Delhi Vidyut Board Vs.Devindra Singh and another of Delhi High Court are quite applicable to the facts of the present case. It has been held that in such circumstances the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act and the dispute between the parties can not be said to be a consumer dispute. Similar view was held by Honble Delhi State Commission in III (2003) Consumer Protection Judgements-66 Delhi Vidyut Board Versus D.N.Shukla. 12. Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs.45248/- on account of theft of energy as per the provision of Electricity Act, 2003. The answer to this question is in negative. Notice Ex.R4 issued by the OPs-Board show that they have issued the same under the old provision of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and not under the new provision of section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 (New Act) which has been made effective w.e.f. 01.01.2008. Thus, the complainant can be charged as per Commercial Circular no.53/2006 and not under the provision of new Act. Had the OPs-Board given the notice of assessment to the complainant under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, then the position would have been different. So the case of the complainant can not be dealt with under the new Act which was made effective on 1.1.2008. 13. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned demand of Rs.45248/- raised vide bill dated 3.5.2008 is liable to be set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board can charge the complainant for theft of energy as per the Commercial Circular no.53/2006. 14. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. The demand of Rs.45248/- raised by the OPs-Board vide bill dated 3.5.2008 as sundry charges is set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board is entitled to issue fresh notice/ demand on account of theft of energy as per Commercial Circular no. 53/2006 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and the complainant shall deposit the same within further 15 days on the receipt of fresh notice/demand. 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:28.08.2008.
