BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 105 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 03.09.2008<br /> Date of Service: 25.09.2008<br /> Decided On: 25.11.2008<br /> <br /> Jeet Ram (aged 60 years) son of Late Sh.Phuman Ram son of late Sh.Namma Ram, resident of House no.345, Gali No.7, Reghar Basti, Moga, 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, South Sub Division, Moga.<br /> 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, South Sub Division, Moga, 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.B.S.Gill, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.N.K.Palta, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Jeet Ram 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.49160/- raised vide memo dated 28.8.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Jeet Ram complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.HC63/0093 installed at his residential premises with sanctioned load of 2.12 KW. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That the OPs-Board had sent a memo no.1727 dated 28.8.2008 in which they demanded Rs.49160/- on account of theft of energy. That no checking of any kind before issuance of the said memo was ever conducted by the OPs-Board. That the said demand is imaginary and prepared by the OPs-Board by sitting in the office. 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 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.N.K.Palta, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; that the complainant is estopped with his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint as the complainant was found committing theft of energy and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. On merits, it was averred in fact on 23.08.2008, Sh.R.K.Joshi AE alongwith other offdicials of the OPs-Board jointly checked the premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by way of using electricity supply by tapping the PVC from joint and bye-passing the meter. The checking was made in the presence of complainant, but he refused to sign the checking report. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, notice no. 1727 dated 28.8.2008 under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.49160/- taking the demand factor 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, copy of receipt Ex.A3, copies of bills and receipts Ex.A4 to Ex.A6, copy of receipt Ex.A7, copies of bills Ex.A8 and Ex.A9, affidavit of Lal Chand Ex.A10 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Sr.XEN and Sh.Gurmeet Singh Ex.R1, copy of sales regulation Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, affidavit of Sh.R.K.Joshi AE Ex.R4 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.B.S.Gill ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.N.K.Palta ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.B.S.Gill ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.49160/- raised vide memo dated 28.8.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in ‘theft of energy’. <br /> 8. On the other hand, Sh.N.K.Palta ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has argued that on 23.08.2008, Sh.R.K.Joshi AE alongwith other officials of the OPs-Board jointly checked the premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by way of using electricity supply by tapping the PVC from joint and bye-passing the meter. The checking was made in the presence of complainant, but he refused to sign 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 23.08.2008, Sh.R.K.Joshi AE alongwith other officials of the OPs-Board 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 joint affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Sr.XEN and Sh.Gurmeet Singh Ex.R1, copy of sales regulation Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, affidavit of Sh.R.K.Joshi AE checking officer Ex.R4.<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 04.03.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means.<br /> 11. Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs.49160/- 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 30%. 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 100% 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 100% under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. <br /> 12. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned demand of Rs.49160/- raised vide memo dated 28.8.2008 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 /> 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. The demand of Rs.49160/- raised by the OPs-Board vide memo dated 28.8.2008 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 />