BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 119 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 11.09.2008<br /> Date of Service: 06.10.2008<br /> Decided On: 25.11.2008<br /> <br /> Hardev Kaur (aged 59 years) widow of Ram Krishan Singh son of Hazura Singh, resident of village: Gholia Khurd, Distt.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, Bagha Purana, Distt.Moga.<br /> 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Smadh Bhai, 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.RPS Bhullar, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.R.K.Goyal, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Smt.Hardev Kaur 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.20528/- raised vide memo dated 14.8.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Smt.Hardev Kaur complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.BH/35/0261 N installed at her residential premises with sanctioned load of 3.50 KW in the name of her husband Ram Krishan Singh. Said Ram Krishan Singh has since been expired and after his death, the complainant has been using the said connection and paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against her. That the OPs-Board had sent a memo no.1586 dated 14.8.2008 in which they demanded Rs.20528/- on account of theft of energy. That the said demand is illegal, void at law and imaginary. That the complainant never indulged in ‘theft of energy’ as alleged in this memo. 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 her for which she 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 standie to file the present complaint as the complainant is not their ‘consumer’, that the electric connection in question has been installed in the name of one Ram Krishan Singh and that the complainant has not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. On merits, it was averred in fact on 08.08.2008, Sh.Gurmail Singh Brar, JE Sub Urban Sub Division, Bagha Purana alongwith other officials of the OPs-Board jointly checked the premises of the complainant and found her stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by way of fitting both wires with joint of main service and the meter was not working at the spot. The checking was made in the presence of family member of the complainant. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, notice no. 1586 dated 14.8.2008 under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.20528/- taking the demand factor 60% on account of ‘heft 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 her case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.A1, copy of notice Ex.A2, copy of bill Ex.A3, copy of death certificate Ex.A4, copy of passport Ex.A5 and closed her evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit of Sh.D.S.Toor, Sr.XEN and Sh.Sukhdev Singh SDO Ex.R1, affidavit of Gurmail Singh Brar, JE Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.RPS Bhullar ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.R.K.Goyal ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Admittedly, the electric connection in question is in the name of Ram Krishan Singh son of Hazura Singh. It was argued by Sh.RPS Bhullar ld.counsel for the complainant that Ram Krishan Singh son of Hazura Singh husband of the complainant has since been expired and after his death, the complainant has been using the connection in question as a beneficiary. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has full force. This fact has not been controverted by the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we therefore, hold that Hardev Kaur complainant being beneficiary is a ‘consumer’ under the Act. Our this view stands fortified by our own Hon’ble State Commission, Pb. Chandigarh in Appeal No.218 of 2004 (Ashwani Kumar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors.) decided on 16.8.2005. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-<br /> “Suffice it to say that in case of Ashwani Kumar he is the owner in possession of the premises though the connection is in the name of Kartar Devi and is actually the consumer of the electricity and therefore, a ‘consumer’’<br /> <br /> 8. Sh.RPS Bhullar ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.20528/- raised vide memo dated 14.8.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in ‘theft of energy’. <br /> 9. On the other hand, Sh.R.K.Goyal ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has argued that on 08.08.2008, Sh.Gurmail Singh Brar, JE Sub Urban Sub Division, Bagha Purana alongwith other of the OPs-Board jointly checked the premises of the complainant and found her stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by way of fitting both wires with joint of main service and the meter was not working at the spot. The checking was made in the presence of family member of the complainant. 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 08.08.2008, Sh.Gurmail Singh Brar, JE Sub Urban Sub Division, Bagha Purana alongwith other officials of the OPs-Board jointly checked the premises of the complainant and found her committing ‘theft of energy’ in the aforesaid manners. To further strengthen the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the OPs-Board has produced joint affidavit of Sh.D.S.Toor, Sr.XEN and Sh.Sukhdev Singh SDO Ex.R1, affidavit of Gurmail Singh Brar, JE Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4.<br /> 10. Further, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that she was not committing ‘theft of electricity’ except his own affidavit Ex.A1. There is no corroboration to her affidavit that she was not stealing the electricity by illegal means. Moreover, she has reason to give false affidavit in order to save herself 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 /> 11. 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 her. In view of these circumstances, we hold that on 08.08.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means.<br /> 12. Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs.20528/- on account of ‘theft of energy’ as per the Electricity Act, 2003. The answer to this question is in negative because the OPs-Board has not complied with the provisions of new Act. Admittedly, the electric connection installed at the premises of the complainant is domestic one. Under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 in case of ‘theft of energy’, the ‘domestic’ consumer at the most can be charged taking the demand factor of 40%. Notice Ex.A2 issued by the OPs-Board as well as written reply and affidavit Ex.R1 show that they have charged the amount taking the demand factor 60% whereas the checking under section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 (New Act), the period is to be taken 6 months and demand factor is to be taken 30% in case of ‘theft of energy’. Thus, the complainant can be charged taking the demand factor of 30% instead of 60% under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. <br /> 13. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned demand of Rs.20528/- raised vide memo dated 14.8.2008 from the complainant is liable to be set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board can charge the complainant for ‘theft of energy’ taking the demand factor 30% under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003.<br /> 14. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. The demand of Rs.20528/- raised by the OPs-Board vide memo dated 14.8.2008 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 of maximum 30% under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. 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 /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:25.11.2008.<br /> hrg*<br />