Vijay Kumar filed a consumer case on 31 Oct 2008 against The Chairman, in the Moga Consumer Court. The case no is CC/08/83 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Punjab
Moga
CC/08/83
Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Chairman, - Opp.Party(s)
31 Oct 2008
ORDER
distt.consumer moga district consumer forum,moga consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/83
Vijay Kumar
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Chairman, XEN,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Jagmohan Singh Chawla 2. Sh.Jit Singh Mallah
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 83 of 2008 Instituted On: 21.07.2008 Date of Service: 21.08.2008 Decided On: 31.10.2008 Vijay Kumar (aged 39 years) son of Sh.Roop Lal, resident of village & Post Office: Khukhrana, Tehsil & Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala. 2. XEN, Punjab State Electricity Board, Moga. 3. Asstt.Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Dagru, Tehsil & Distt.Moga. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member. Present: Sh.RPS Bhullar, Adv.counsel for complainant. Sh.Satvir Singh, Adv. counsel for OPs. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Vijay Kumar 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.30095/- raised vide notice no.541 dated 29.02.2008; further included the impugned amount in consumption bills dated 2.5.2008 and 27.6.2008 and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment. 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Vijay Kumar complainant is a consumer of the OPs-Board having NRS electric connection bearing account no.KH/24/0393 installed at his premises with sanctioned load of 2.14 KW. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That the OPs-Board had sent a notice no.541 dated 29.2.2008 vide which they raised Rs.30095/- on account of theft of energy. This allegation of the OPs-Board is totally wrong and denied. The complainant never indulged in theft of energy. That the complainant wrote a letter to the OPs-Board on 27.2.2008 to quash the aforesaid illegal amount, but the OPs-Board added the impugned amount in his consumption bills dated 2.5.2008 and 27.6.2008. That the complainant requested the OPs-Board 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.Satvir Singh, 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 was indulging in theft of energy and thus, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. It was averred that in fact on 16.2.2008 the meter of the complainant was checked by joint raiding staff, Bhinder Kalan led by AEE and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by placing the meter box diagonally. The checking was made in the presence of the complainant, but he refused to sign the checking report. That the checking authority declared it as a case of theft of energy. Thereafter, notice no. 541 dated 29.2.2008 was served upon the complainant to deposit Rs.30095/- on account of theft of energy under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. On merits, the OPs-Board took up the same and similar plea 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 his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of notice Ex.A2, copy of application Ex.A3, copies of bills Ex.A4 and Ex.A5, bill-cum-receipt Ex.A6 and closed his evidence. 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Add.SE Ex.R1, copy of checking report Ex.R2, copy of assessment Ex.R3, copy of RCO Ex.R4 and closed their evidence. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.RPS Bhullar ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.Satvir Singh ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 7. Sh.RPS Bhullar ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.30095/- raised by the OPs-Board vide notice no.541 dated 29.2.2008 was wrong and illegal because the OPs-Board has failed to prove any theft of energy against the complainant. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has full force. According to the OPs-Board, on 16.2.2008 the meter of the complainant was checked by joint raiding staff, Bhinder Kalan led by AEE and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by placing the meter box diagonally. But it is neither mentioned in the written reply nor in the affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Addl. S.E. Ex.R1 that as to who was leading the said raiding party. The OPs-Board has also failed to disclose the name of said AEE who effected the raid and found the complainant allegedly committing the theft of energy. Moreover, no affidavit of the checking officer in support of their contention has been filed. Thus, in the absence of affidavit of checking officer or staff accompanying him, it can not be held that the complainant was committing theft of energy allegedly conducted on 16.2.2008. The affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Addl. S.E. Ex.R1 is of formal character because he was not a member of raiding party and his affidavit failed to prove the allegation of theft of energy being committed by the complainant. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. 8. To prove the aforesaid contention, the complainant produced his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of notice Ex.A2, copy of application Ex.A3, copies of bills Ex.A4 and Ex.A5, bill-cum-receipt Ex.A6. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Addl. S.E. Ex.R1 and other documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 and we discard the same. 9. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has merit and the same is accepted. The demand of Rs.30095/- raised by the OPs-Board vide notice no.541 dated 29.2.2008 from the complainant is set aside and quashed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room. (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:31.10.2008. hrg*