DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/108 of 18.2.2010 Decided on: 23.8.2010 Amarjit Kaur aged about 40 years W/o Sh.Ajaib Singh Resident of Village Dhelpur, P.O.Geege Majra, Tehsil and District Mohali. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Banur, District Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sarv Sh.J.S.Jindu & P.S.Jaggi Advocates For opposite parties: Sh.Pawan Puri, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Amarjit Kaur 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 a consumer of Punjab State Electricity Board having domestic connection running in the name of her husband bearing account No. DF-89/1647-P under the office of opposite party no.2. The husband of the complainant is in Military and is posted at far away place. Family of Sh.Sjaib Singh is residing in village Dhelpur, and is using the said connection and is beneficiary of the service. That the opposite parties have issued order of assessment vide opposite party no.2 memo No.2481 dated 28.12.2009 regarding account No.DF-89/1647-P which has been received by the complainant on 20.1.2010, and assessment has been intimated amounting to Rs.19536/- on the basis of alleged theft of energy U/s 135 of Electricity Act. It has been mentioned on the order of assessment as under:- “ ygseko B/ whNo dh NowhBb gb/N ftZu fBT{Nb c/; pdb e/ ns/ NowhBbK ftu b{g brk e/ f;ZXh ;gbkJh ukb{ ehsh jJh ;h. uoh dk e/; j?. we/ s/ cN fyZuh rJh. whNo yVk ;h.”. That the provisional order of assessment has been issued without any basis. No site report of checking of any authority has been attached with this order of assessment. That the false allegations have been leveled against the complainant and the complainant had never committed theft of energy as has been alleged in the notice raising demand. That it has been mentioned on the notice raising demand that the connection has been checked by Er.Bhushan Sharma JE-II,Sub Division Derabassi. The Junior Engineer working in Operation Sub Division, Derabassi is not competent to check connection under the office of Sub Division,Banur. Otherwise also Junior Engineer has not given powers by the State Government to inspect the premises for checking theft of energy. The act of the opposite parties is without jurisdiction. That no site report has been handed over to the complainant or any of her representative. The signature of the complainant have not been obtained on any such site report. No such site report has been annexed with the order of assessment dated 28.12.2009. That after receiving the order of assessment dated 28.12.2009, the complainant went to the office of opposite party no.2 and requested that she has never committed theft of energy and nobody has inspected her premises and also requested to withdraw the order raising demand of Rs.19536/-. The opposite party no.2 assured the complainant that the matter will be investigated and the necessary action will be done for refund of the said amount after investigation but nothing has been done in the matter. That the complainant further requested to withdraw the demand but the opposite party no.2 has refused to entertain the genuine request of the complainant and threatened disconnection in case the amount in question is not deposited. That the Government of Punjab by Gazette notification has notified assessing officer under Section 126 of Electricity Act,2003 but has not notified any authority under Section 135 of the Act. The act of the opposite party no.2 is without jurisdiction and authority. He is not competent to raise any such demand. That the above actions and orders of the opposite parties are illegal, null and void, ultravirus, malafide, without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice and against and contrary to the rules, regulations and instructions of the department in this regard. That the complainant has been facing mental pain, agony and great inconvenience has been caused to the complainant due to the acts of the opposite parties. She is entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.20000/-on this account. That it is a case of gross deficiency on the part of 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 admitted that Sh.Ajaib Singh is the consumer of the Board. The complainant has no concern with the connection in any manner and is not a consumer under the Act. That the connection of the complainant was checked by the checking team of the Board on 24.12.2009 and after checking the connection of the complainant had found that the complainant was committing unauthorized use of supply by by-passing the meter. The complainant has adopted illegal means for committing the theft of electricity energy. The manner and method of committing the theft of electricity energy has been described in the checking report. The same was removed from the site of the consumer and was taken in possession by the checking officers of the Board and the same is lying in the concerned office of the Board. The complainant namely Amarjit Kaur was present at the site at the time of checking the connection but she had refused to sign the checking report as the consumer was caught red handed of committing theft of energy. The checking team had conducted the photography of the site in which the manner and method of committing theft of electricity energy is clearly established. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was issued a notice under Section 135 of the Act vide which the assessing officer had passed the orders of assessment of penalty of committing the theft of electricity energy against the complainant and the complainant was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.19536/- as has been assessed by the assessing officer of the Board and the consumer was also directed to file the objections against the orders of provisional assessment, if any within 7 days. The complainant has not filed any objections against the orders of assessment. The non filing of objections by the complainant amounts to admission of guilt. The allegations of the complainant are absolutely false and the same are the concocted story of the complainant. The complainant has not contacted any officer or official of the Board after receiving the notice. The Board has rightly raised the demand against the complainant for committing theft of electricity energy as has been defined under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. There is no question of withdrawal of the demand as has been raised by the Board. The demand as has been raised by the Board is a legal demand and has been raised as per rules. The criteria of charging the amount has been duly prescribed under the Electricity Act 2003.The Board has raised the demand strictly as per criteria prescribed in the schedule in the said Act. There is no illegality in any manner. The demand of the Board is absolutely legal. The Board has taken the action as per provisions of Act, Rules and regulations governing the conditions of supply to the consumer in the State of Punjab. It is denied that the demand has been raised without any basis. It is the false plea of the complainant that no checking was conducted by the checking team of the Board. The checking officers have duly mentioned in their report the manner and method of committing theft of energy by the complainant. The checking officers had conducted the photography and the photograph of the site shall be produced before this Forum to prove the fact that checking was conducted by the checking team and the complainant was caught of committing theft of electricity energy. It is denied that the checking officer has falsely alleged that the complainant was committing theft of energy. It is denied that no site report has been given to the complainant. In fact, the complainant was present at the site at the time of checking of the connection and she had refused to sign in lieu of receipt of checking report. The copy of the checking report was delivered to the complainant by the checking officer. Even a copy of the same was also delivered to the complainant along with notice under Section 135 of the Act. No action or orders of the Board are illegal in any manner. It is denied that the assessment order has not been passed by the competent authority. It is denied that no statutory authority has been empowered under the Act to pass the orders of assessment under Section 135 of the Act. It is denied that Assistant Engineer is not competent to charge the amount for which demand has been raised by the opposite parties. There is no question of any mental agony to the complainant as the Board is acting as per rules. There is no deficiency in service. There is no unfair trade practice on the part of the Board. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. In order to prove her case the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit,Ex.C1 and provisional order of assessment,Ex.C2. 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties did not lead any evidence. Their evidence was closed by order on 7.7.2010. 6. The parties have not filed the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 7. The whole case of the opposite parties is dependant upon the alleged checking report dated 24.12.2009.However, to prove the alleged checking report dated 24.12.2009 the opposite parties have neither placed on record the checking report or have examined the official who had allegedly conducted the checking. The memo,Ex.C2 was issued on the basis of alleged checking dated 24.12.2009.Since the basis of the memo,Ex.C2 has not been placed on the record by the opposite parties the alleged memo,Ex.C2 dated 28.12.2009 can not be relied upon. The opposite parties in support their case have not led any evidence. So the evidence led by the complainant has remained un rebutted on the record. 8. 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. 9. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.2000/-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 the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:23.8.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
