<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 86 of 2008<br /> Institution On:01.08.2008<br /> Date of Service:21.08.2008<br /> Decided On: 31.10.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Boota Singh (aged 52 years) son of Ujagar Singh resident of VPO Manuke, Nihal Singh Wala, district Moga.<br /> <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, Baghapurana.<br /> 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Smadh Bhai, District Moga.<br /> <br /> ..Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE<br /> CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.<br /> <br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President<br /> Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh. Vineet Mittal,Adv, counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.R.K.Goyal,Adv, counsel for the OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Boota 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 Patiala, through its Secretary and others–Opposite Parties (herein-after referred to as ‘Board’) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.20015/- raised vide bill dated 18.07.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Boota Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic connection no.F14MK510188K with sanctioned load of 0.090 KW. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That he received a bill dated 18.07.2008 in which OPs-Board have demanded Rs.20015/-. That this bill in question is excessive one. That the complainant received the said bill from the OPs-Board a few days back. That the said demand is altogether illegal, unjust, void at law and against the rules and regulations of the PSEB. That no notice of any kind has been issued to him before adding the impugned amount in his consumption bill. That he never committed any ‘theft of energy’. That on the receipt of said illegal demand raised by the OPs-Board, the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board time and again and requested to withdraw the impugned amount, but all in vain. 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.R.K.Goyal, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant is estopped to file the present complaint by his act and conduct; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; On merits, it was averred that in fact on 3.11.2007, Sh.Avtar Singh JE and Sh.Lal Singh AJE officials of OPs-Board jointly checked the residential premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. inserting the direct wire into grip from incoming side of the meter and the meter was not running at the spot and was also using the load to the extent of 1.06 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.090 KW. That the checking authority declared it as the case of ‘theft of energy’. That the checking authority prepared the detailed report regarding the same on the spot. That the checking was made in the presence of complainant, but he refused to sign the checking report. Thereafter, the impugned amount has been added in his consumption bill dated 18.07.2008, to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. 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. In order to prove his case, the complainant in evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of bills Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 and closed the evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Ops-Board have tendered joint affidavit of Sh. Damanjit Singh, Executive Engineer and Sh.Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer as Ex.R1, copy of detail Ex.R2, copy of circular Ex.R3, copy of checking report Ex.R4 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Vineet Mittal, Adv. counsel for the complainant and Sh.R.K.Goyal, Adv. counsel for the Ops-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. <br /> 7. Sh.Vineet Mittal, ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.20015/- raised in the bill dated 18.07.2008 is illegal and unlawful because the complainant has not received any notice sent by Ops-Board against the said checking and he had never indulged in ‘theft of energy’. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has some force. Admittedly, the premises of the complainant was checked on 03.11.2007 and he was found committing ‘theft of energy’ as well as using excess load. He was having sanctioned load of 0.090 KW whereas at the spot he was using load of 1.06 KW. Thus he was using excess load of .996 KW and the amount of Rs.2040/- (Rs.2640/-) was recovered from him as mentioned in the copy of the checking report Ex.R4.<br /> 8. Thereafter, the complainant was sent bill for the months of May, 2008 and July, 2008 on average basis of 1995 units and 2332 units respectively, as his meter was found defective. He was charged under regulations of 73.1.3 instead of 73.1.2. When his load has already been enhanced on 03.11.2007 from 0.090 KW to 1.06 KW then he cannot be charged under regulation 73.1.3. The OPs-Board should have charged him under regulation 73.1.2 by taking the average consumption of previous four or six months or the average of the previous year for the same period. Thus, the average of 1995 units and 2332 units for the months of May, 2008 and July, 2008 under regulation 73.1.3 taken by the OPs-Board was wrong and illegal and cannot sustain.<br /> 9 Thus, we hold that the impugned demand of Rs.20015/- raised by the OPs-Board vide bill 18.07.2008 was wrong and illegal and setaside the same. <br /> 8. To prove the aforesaid contention, the complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of bills Ex.A2 to Ex.A5. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.R1of Sh.Damajit Singh,Executive Engineer and Sh.Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 and we discard the same.<br /> 11. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has some merit and the same is partly accepted. The demand of Rs.20015/- raised by the OPs-Board vide bill no.18.07.2008 is setaside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board is entitled to recover the bill for months of May,2008 and July,2008, taking the average consumption for the last four or six months or of the previous year for the same period under regulation 73.1.2 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. <br /> <br /> (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:31.10.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />