BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.231 of 2018

Date of Instt. 28.05.2018

Date of Decision: 04.07.2022

Inderjit Singh aged about 38 years son of Shri Surinder Pal Singh, resident of House No.251/18-B, Deol Nagar, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala      through its Chairman.

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Model Town Sub Division     Jalandhar through its Sub Divisional Officer.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Gulshan Arora, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. SKS Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is joint owner of the property with his brother Paramjit Singh. The complainant jointly purchased the property with his brother Paramjit Singh from Smt. Harjit Kaur vide sale deed No.6928 dated 26.12.2016. The electricity connection bearing Account No.3003170645 and Meter No.8521008 is installed in the name of Smt. Harjit Kaur in the property. After purchase of the property, the complainant has been using the said electricity connection and has been regularly paying the electricity bills. The complainant is the actual consumer of the connection and has been paying the electricity bills regularly without any default. In the sale deed executed by Smt. Harjit Kaur, it has been specifically mentioned that there is no outstanding against electricity department in respect of the electricity connection. On 16.05.2018, some officials of the OPs came to the house of the complainant and told that some FIR was registered against one Parveen Kumar with regard to theft of electricity in the premises pertaining to the year 2014. On coming to know about the facts, the complainant immediately approached the OP No.2 in order to know about the status of the electricity meter. It was certified that there is no due against the consumer in respect of Meter No.8521008 bearing No.3003170645 installed in the name of Harjit Kaur and issued a certificate to this effect. The complainant is not a defaulter in any manner, but the OP No.2 is adamant to disconnect the electricity connection on the basis of some FIR registered against Parveen Kumar. The OPs have no right to disconnect the electricity connection installed in the property in the name of Harjit Kaur from whom, the complainant and his brother have purchased the property. The complainant approached the OPs with a request not to disconnect the electricity connection but the OPs turned deaf ear to the request of the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be restrain from disconnecting the meter no.8521008 bearing account NO.3003170645 installed in the name of Harjit Kaur or to impose or effect any alleged recovery from the complainant with regard to lapse on the part of Parveen Kumar. Further, OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages on account of negligence and deficiency in service and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed its joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed, just to harass the answering OPs. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable in the present form. The complainant is having no locus-standi to file the present complaint. The complaint filed by the complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties. On 14.08.2014 the premises, was checked by the Enforcement Team and during the checking at the spot, it came into the notice of the Enforcement Team that one Parveen Kumar is making the direct use of energy by directly putting Kundi with the electricity pole. As such, the case of Direct Theft of Energy is made out against the said Parveen Kumar. The memo No.78/275 dated 12.08.2014 of Direct Theft of Energy was prepared at the spot. Even an FIR was also registered on 14.08.2014 against the said Parveen Kumar. It is further averred that no cause of action arose to the complainant against the OPs rather cause of action arisen to the OPs against the complainant for dragging the OPs in the false, frivolous and vexatious litigation. On merits, the factum with regard to theft of the energy is admitted and lodging of an FIR regarding theft is also admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                From the scrutiny of this case, it is transpired that it is a case of unauthorized use of electricity/theft case and regarding this an FIR was also registered on 14.08.2014 and the OPs have issued Memo No.78/275 dated 12.08.2014 of ‘Direct Theft of Energy’. As per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd & Ors Vs Anis Ahmad decided on 01.07.2013 and relevant Para No. 46 is reproduced as under:-  

“46.   The act of indulgence in “unauthorized use of electricity” by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 neither has any relationship with “unfair trade practice” or “restrictive trade practice” or “deficiency in service” nor does it amounts to hazardous services by the licensee. Such act of “unauthorized use of electricity” has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the price.  Therefore, acts of person in indulging in ‘unauthorized use of electricity’, do not fall within the meaning of “complaint”, as we have noticed above and, therefore, the “complaint” against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.  The Commission has already noticed that the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  In that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.”

7.                From facts and circumstances of the case, we accordingly, dispose of the complaint. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek remedy before the competent court/authority and also seeks condonation of delay for the period for which instant complaint remained pending before this Forum, if he so desires and or if so advised. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

04.07.2022         Member                          Member      President