BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 95 of 2008<br /> Instituted On:13.08.2008<br /> Date of Service: 04.09.2008<br /> Decided On: 02.12.2008<br /> <br /> Devinder Singh (aged 35 years) son of Sh.Ganga Singh, resident of Village: Lohara, Tehsil & 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. Asstt.Executive Engineer/ Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Kot Ise Khan, 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 /> <br /> Present: Sh.H.S.Brar, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Davinder 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.32973/- raised vide memo dated 23.07.2008 and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Davinder Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection installed at his residential premises. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That previously, the complainant applied for new electric connection with the OPs-Board for construction work and for this purpose, he visited the OPs-Board time and again, but the officials of the OPs-Board demanded illegal gratification to install the new connection at his premises. On refusal to pay the illegal gratification, the officials of the OPs-Board got annoyed. Thereafter, some employees of the OPs-Board visited his premises and got the signatures of his father on some blank papers on the pretext that they were going to install the new meter as required by the complainant. That the complainant was stunned to receive a memo no.2081 dated 23.7.2008 in which they demanded Rs.32975/- on account of ‘theft of energy’. That the complainant never indulged in ‘theft of energy’ as alleged in this memo. That the said demand is imaginary and prepared by the OPs-Board arbitrarily. That the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board time and again and requested 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.<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 there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. It was averred that in fact on 04.07.2008 Mohinder Singh, AAE, Sub Urban Division, Moga alongwith Sh.Harjit Singh, AJE, PSEB Dharamkot jointly checked the premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by way of fixing direct wire from the main PVC. The checking was made in the presence of Ganga Singh, representative (father) of the complainant, who duly signed the checking report. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, notice no. 2081 dated 23.07.2008 under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.32973/- taking the demand factor of 100% on account of direct theft of energy, 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 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of notice Ex.A2, copies of receipts Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, copy of generator bill Ex.A5, copies of residence proof Ex.A6 and Ex.A7, copy of ration card Ex.A8, copies of bills Ex.A9 and Ex.A10, copies of receipts Ex.A11 to Ex.A13 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Addl.S.E. Ex.R1, affidavit of Mohinder Singh AAE Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of regulation Ex.R4, copy of notice Ex.R5 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.H.S.Brar ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.K.Dhir ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.H.S.Brar ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.32973/- raised vide memo dated 23.07.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in ‘theft of energy’. <br /> 8. On the other hand, Sh.S.K.Dhir ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has argued that on 04.07.2008 Mohinder Singh, AAE, Sub Urban Division, Moga alongwith Sh.Harjit Singh, AJE, PSEB Dharamkot jointly checked the premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by way of fixing direct wire from the main PVC. The checking was made in the presence of Ganga Singh, the representative (father) of the complainant, who duly signed the checking report. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has some force. Admittedly, on 04.07.2008 Mohinder Singh, AAE, Sub Urban Division, Moga alongwith Sh.Harjit Singh, AJE, PSEB Dharamkot jointly checked the premises of the complainant and 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.M.S.Brar, Addl.S.E. Ex.R1, affidavit of Mohinder Singh AAE Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of regulation Ex.R4, copy of notice Ex.R5.<br /> 9. Further, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not committing ‘theft of electricity’ except his own affidavit Ex.A1. 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 Ex.A1 of the complainant and we discard the same.<br /> 10. 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 04.07.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means.<br /> 11. Now the question for determination is whether the complainant can impose the penalty on the complainant by taking 100% demand factor on account of direct theft. The answer to this question is in negative. Admittedly, the complainant applied for electric connection on 12.2.2008 whereas the alleged checking was conducted on 4.7.2008. The new connection was released to him on 29.7.2008. Thus, it shows that prior to 4½ months of alleged checking, the complainant had applied for new connection after making the payment of requisite security and fee etc., but the OPs-Board did not release the connection to him for the reasons best known to them. Thus, the complainant can not be deemed to be without connection when he had already applied about 4½ months prior to the alleged checking. Thus, he was a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having applied for electric connection and the provisions of direct theft would not be attracted to his case. At the most, he can be held liable for alleged unauthorized use of electricity being a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board. In such a situation, the OPs-Board can penalize him by taking demand factor as 30% and not 100% as provided under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003.<br /> 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we therefore, hold that the impugned demand of Rs.32973/- raised vide memo dated 23.07.2008 from the complainant is illegal and invalid and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board can charge the complainant for unauthorized use of electricity by taking the demand factor as 30% under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003.<br /> 13. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted and the demand of Rs.32973/- raised by the OPs-Board vide memo dated 23.07.2008 from the complainant is set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board is entitled to issue fresh notice/ demand on account of ‘theft of energy’ taking the demand factor as 30%. The OPs-Board is also directed to refund/adjust the amount (as per the desire of the complainant), if any, deposited by the complainant, as per interim order of this Forum dated 14.08.2008 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realisation. 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) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:02.12.2008.<br /> hrg*<br />