BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 88 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 01.08.2008<br /> Date of Service: 21.08.2008<br /> Decided On: 25.09.2008<br /> <br /> Balwinder Singh (aged 58 years) son of Sh.Kuldeep Singh, resident of village: Dhurkot Charat SinghWala, Distt.Moga.<br /> Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Moga.<br /> 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Badhni Kalan, Distt.Moga.<br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: None for the complainant.<br /> Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Balwinder Singh 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.44612/- raised vide bill dated 24.6.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> <br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Balwinder Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.FR/32/0295K installed at his residential premises with sanctioned load of 1.60 KW. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That the OPs-Board had sent a bill dated 24.06.2008 in which they demanded Rs.44612/- on account of arrears. That neither any checking of any kind was ever conducted by the OPs-Board nor any notice was ever issued to him before adding the impugned amount in his consumption bill. That the said demand is imaginary illegal and void. That the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board time and again and requested to withdraw the impugned demand, 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.20000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.S.K.Dhir, 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 this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. In fact on 19.03.2008, Sh.Jagtar Singh AEE and Sh.Sukhdev Singh JE jointly checked the residential premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by changing the neutral phase and wire of the earth was affixed near the meter directly. The meter was not recording the consumption at the spot. The checking was made in the presence of complainant who duly signed the checking report and received the copy. That the checking authority declared it a case of theft of energy. Thereafter, notice no. 5038 dated 27.03.2008 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.40078/- on account of theft of energy, but the complainant did not pay the same. Thereafter, the impugned amount has been added in his consumption bill dated 24.06.2008, to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. On merits, the OPs-Board took 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.<br /> 4. After filing the complaint, neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared inspite of adjournment. So as per the directions of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition no.1051 of 2001 titled as Ram Raksh Pal Gupta & Anr. Vs. Smt.Ranjana, decided on 03.10.2001 that “If the lawyers do not appear before District Forum or State Commission, it can decide the matter on the basis of the record, if it so chooses”. Thus, we have closed the evidence of the complainant by order on 24.9.2008. Ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has tendered affidavit of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.XEN Ex.R1, copy of notice Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3 and closed their evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard the arguments of Sh.S.K.Dhir ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 6. The complainant in complaint as well as in his affidavit has mentioned that the impugned demand of Rs.44612/- raised vide bill dated 24.6.2008 by the OPs-Board from him is illegal and unlawful because he had never used the electricity to that extent. <br /> 7. On the other hand, Sh.S.K.Dhir ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has argued that in fact on 19.03.2008, Sh.Jagtar Singh AEE and Sh.Sukhdev Singh JE jointly checked the residential premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by changing the neutral phase and wire of the earth was affixed near the meter directly. The meter was not recording the consumption at the spot. The checking was made in the presence of complainant who duly signed the checking report (Ex.R3) and received its copy. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, notice no. 5038 dated 27.03.2008 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.40078/- on account of theft of energy, but the complainant did not pay the same. Thereafter, the impugned amount has been added in his consumption bill dated 24.06.2008, to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has some force. Admittedly, on 19.03.2008, Sh.Jagtar Singh AEE and Sh.Sukhdev Singh JE jointly checked the residential premises of the complainant who found him committing theft of energy in the aforesaid manners. To further strengthen the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the OPs-Board has produced affidavit of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.XEN Ex.R1, copy of notice Ex.R2 and copy of checking report Ex.R3.<br /> 8. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not stealing the electricity except his own affidavit. There is no corroboration to his affidavit that he was not stealing the electricity by illegal means. Moreover, he has reason to give false affidavit in order to save himself from the consequences of being caught red handed while stealing the electricity by illegal means. Thus, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit of the complainant and we discard the same.<br /> 9. 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 him. In view of these circumstances, we hold that on 19.03.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means. <br /> 10. Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs.40078/- on account of theft of energy as per the new Electricity Act, 2003. The answer to this question is in negative because the OPs-Board has not complied with the provisions of new Act. Notice 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. The provisions of the new Act are more stringent than the old Act. Under the new Act, the OPs-Board was required to give time to the consumer for filing objections against the provisional assessment and of personal hearing whereas the impugned notice did not contain the provisions of inviting objections and of personal hearing as provided under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. Thus, the complainant can be charged as per old provisions of commercial circular no.53/2006 and not under the provision of new Act. Had the OPs-Board given the notice of provisional 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. <br /> 11. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned demand of Rs.40078/- raised vide memo dated 27.03.2008 and thereafter, including the said amount in the consumption bill dated 24.06.2008 of the complainant is liable to be set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board can charge the complainant for theft of energy as per the old provisions of Commercial Circular no.53/2006. <br /> 12. The ld. counsel for the OPs-Board did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. The demand of Rs.40078/- raised by the OPs-Board vide memo dated 27.03.2008 and thereafter, including the said amount in the consumption bill dated 24.06.2008 of the complainant is set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board is entitled to issue fresh notice/ demand on account of theft of energy as per the old provisions of Commercial Circular no. 53/2006. In view of 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. <br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:25.09.2008.<br /> hrg*<br />