DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/010/189 of 15.3.2010     

                                                Decided on:          6.9.2010

Gurbaz Singh aged 65 years, son of Sh.Jetha Singh R/o Village Gharam, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala.

2.                 Asstt.Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Operation Sub Division, Rohar Jageer, District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.Inderjit Singh, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sarv Sh. B.M.Singh & K.S.Sidhu, Advocates

For opposite parties:     Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate

                                         ORDER

SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                                      Complainant Gurbaz Singh  has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against  the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.

2.                                   As per averments made in the complaint the case

of   the complainant is like this:-

                                      That the complainant is consumer of Punjab State Electricity Board having electricity connection bearing A/c No.P26GF420135M, which is installed at the residential premises of the complainant at village Gharam,  District Patiala. The complainant along with his family and  mother-in-law namely Smt.Dalip Kaur are residing at village Gharam as a joint family and consuming electricity against account No.P26GF420135M in the name of Tilak Ram s/o Gurdas Singh.This house has been purchased by Smt.Dalip Kaur mother-in-law of the complainant. The complainant is using the supply of electricity for the domestic purposes only and is paying the charges for the consumption of energy on the said connection regularly and nothing is pending against him. The sanctioned connected load is only 1.54KW.That the officials/officers of opposite parties used to check the meter/load of the complainant regularly, as per the rules and the same has always been shown as OK. That the complainant was shocked/surprised when he received a demand notice No.439 dated 8.3.2010 from the opposite party no.2 alleging therein that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked on 4.3.2010 by the AEE and two ALM of Operation Sub Division, Rohar Jageer and during the inspection theft of electricity was noticed. On the basis of the said false report, the opposite parties have raised a demand of Rs.25080/- on account of theft of electricity plus Rs.6000/- as compounding charges totaling Rs.31080/- and directed to deposit the same within a period of 7 days failing which the electricity connection would be disconnected. That the father name of the complainant has wrongly been mentioned as Surjit Singh in the demand notice whereas the actual name of the father of the complainant is Jetha Singh. That the complainant made a representation against the ibid demand notice before the opposite party no.2 on 10.3.2010 in person but the opposite parties refused to consider the same and even refused to listen the complainant and directed the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.31080/- within the stipulated period to avoid penal action/consequences and disconnection of electricity connection a/c No.P26GF420135M. That the demand notice  dated 8.3.2010 is illegal, ultravirus, malafide, without jurisdiction and is liable to be ignored and quashed. That the opposite parties have caused huge loss and mental agony by issuing the said illegal demand notice No.439 dated 8.3.2010 of Rs.25080/- as theft of electricity plus Rs.6000/-as compounding charges totaling Rs.31080/- and the order of the opposite parties  amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice as such the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10000/-from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.                                   Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the electricity connection bearing account No.P26GF420135M exists in the adjacent premises in the name of Tilak Raj and there is no electricity meter installed in the house/premises where the complainant is residing. That the detail of electricity connection bearing account No.P26GF420135M  which is in the name of Sh.Tilak Raj has been stated by the complainant in the complaint with malafide intent to mislead the Forum whereas no electricity meter is installed in the house/premises, of the complainant where he was found to be indulging in theft of energy by illegal means during its checking by the P.S.E.B. checking team. That there is no electricity meter  installed by the complainant in his name or anybody else name in the premises, where he was found to be indulging in theft of energy by illegal means. That house/premises were checked by the authorized and competent P.S.E.B. checking team consisting of Er.Rehmal Singh-AAE alongwith Sh.Niranjan Singh-ALM and Sh.Harmeet Singh-LM and others vide checking report No.67/810 dated 4.3.2010 and it was found during its checking that f;ZXh uoh  we/ s/ eb bzxdh w/B gh th ;h ftZu Bhb/ ozr dh bZrGr 10 whNo dh eZuh sko dh e[zvh bk e/ uoh eodk gkfJnk frnk. we/ s/ bZrh sko T[sko e/ epi/a ftZu bJh rJh j?. we/ s/ r[opkia f;zzx jkiao ;h gozs{ d;sys eoB s fJBeko eo fdZsk which amounts to theft of energy by illegal means by the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay for the same as per rules. That the above stated checking of above stated house/premises of the complainant though was carried out in the presence of the complainant who was present at the site, but he refused to sign on the checking report and necessary endorsement to this effect has also been made in the checking report. That a copy of the checking report was also supplied to the complainant at the time of its checking. That the cable which was being used by the complainant for illegal kundi was also taken into possession by the above stated P.S.E.B. checking team and the same has been duly sealed and packed and the same has been kept in the safe custody for further action, if any and endorsement to this effect has also been made in the checking report. That based on the above stated checking report a legal demand memo No.438 dated 8.3.2010 amounting to Rs.25080/- was made upon the complainant and it was also advised to the complainant that he may pay Rs.6000/-as compounding fee charges in his own interest to avoid any police action in the matter since complainant was  found to be indulging in theft of energy by illegal means since the matter has been reported to Inspector, Anti Power Theft Police Station, P.S.E.B.,Patiala to lodge necessary FIR vide memo No.501 dated 13.3.2010 in the case. The complainant is liable to pay the legal demand amount since the same has been levied upon the complainant as per rules and there is no illegality in it. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.

4.                                   The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record.

5.                                   The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                                   The whole case of the opposite parties is dependant upon the alleged checking report dated 4.3.2010, Ex.R4 and on the affidavits, Exs.R1 of Er.J.K.Jindal,AEE, R2  of Er.Rahmal Singh,AEE and R3 of Sh.Harmeet Singh,LM. A perusal of the checking report, Ex.R4 indicates that it does not include signatures of either the complainant or his representative. The report has also not been authenticated by any respectable person of the locality to confirm its veracity. Further more there is no evidence of a copy of this report having been given to the complainant. Under these circumstances the checking report in its present shape is against the rules and regulations of the opposite parties and it therefore, cannot be relied upon. On this point we are supported by the authority Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot Vs. Sarwan Singh 2008(1) CLT 237.

7.                                   In view of the foregoing discussion we are clearly of the view that the opposite parties have failed to establish their case of theft of electricity on the part of the complainant. We are also of the clear view that the opposite parties have unnecessarily drawn the complainant into prolonged litigation.

8.                                   As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

                                      File be consigned to the record.

Pronounced.

Dated: 6.9.2010.

                                                                             President

                                                                             Member

                                                                             Member