BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 98 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 19.08.2008<br /> Date of Service: 11.09.2008<br /> Decided On: 31.10.2008<br /> <br /> Naranjan Singh (aged 53 years) son of Sh.Nand Singh, resident of village:Dhalle Ke, Distt.Moga.<br /> Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. Punjab State Electricity Board through its XEN, North, Moga.<br /> 3. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Sub Divisional Officer, North, 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 /> Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Sudarshan Singla, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.Satvir Singh, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Naranjan 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.6995/- raised vide notice dated 05.08.2008 and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Naranjan Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.DH/66/0240 installed at his residential premises with sanctioned load of 2.30 KW. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That the OPs-Board had sent a notice no.2747 dated 18.10.2007 for Rs.3998/- on account of ‘unauthorized use of electricity’ which he deposited vide receipt no.139 dated 04.12.2007. That now again the OPs-Board sent a notice dated 05.08.2008 vide which they raised a demand of Rs.6995/- due to difference of amount on account of ‘theft of electricity’ under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. That the clarification issued by the Chief Engineer (Commercial) Patiala vide letter dated 29.11.2007 is not applicable to the instant case because the Electricity Act, 2003 come into force w.e.f. 1.1.2008. That the complainant requested the OPs-Board 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.Satvir Singh, 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 the complainant was indulging in direct theft of energy and thus, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. It was averred that in fact on 03.10.2007 Sh.Bakhsish Singh AEE, PSEB Badhni Kalan checked the residential premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by way of fixing the direct wire in the grips from main incoming and supply was running on the spot and the meter was not recording any consumption. The checking was made in the presence of Shamsher Singh, representative 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. 2747 dated 18.10.2007 of provisional order of assessment for ‘unauthorized use of electricity’ was served upon the complainant to deposit Rs.3998/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and the impugned demand raised by them was deposited by the complainant on 4.12.2007. That the said amount has been calculated taking the load factor as 40%. Thereafter, clarification of Chief Engineer, PSEB Patiala was received vide which in ‘theft cases’ the amount to be calculated was by taking 100% load factor. Accordingly, the audit party vide its half margin no.134 detected this mistake and raised further demand of Rs.6995/- on account of difference of amount of theft of electricity to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. On merits, the OPs-Board took up 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. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of receipt Ex.A2, copies of notices Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Addl. S.E. Ex.R1, copy of checking report Ex.R2, copy of assessment Ex.R3, copy of half margin Ex.R4, copy of letter Ex.R5, copy of clarification Ex.R6, copy of letter Ex.R7 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Sudarshan Singla ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.Satvir Singh ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.Sudarshan Singla ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.6995/- raised vide notice no.1627 dated 5.8.2008 by the OPs-Board is wrong and illegal because the complainant had already paid Rs.3998/- vide receipt no.139 dated 04.12.2007 on account of ‘unauthorized use of electricity’. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has full force. Admittedly, the OPs-Board found the complainant using the unauthorized electricity and vide notice no.2747 dated 18.10.2007 he was directed to pay Rs.3998/- which he deposited vide receipt no.139 dated 04.12.2007.<br /> 8. Now the contention of the OPs-Board is that they have charged the complainant for ‘unauthorized use of electricity’ by taking 40% load factor whereas he was to be charged for 100% load factor. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has no merit. Circular 53/2006 produced by the OPs-Board shows that in cases of theft/ unauthorized use of electricity, a domestic consumer has to be charged for taking 40% load factor. The case of the complainant (who is a domestic consumer) does not fall under category ‘e’ of rule (1) of said circular. Thus, the OPs-Board has wrongly issued the fresh notice to him to pay the difference of amount i.e. impugned amount by taking the load factor of 100% instead of 40% (already charged). In this regard, letter Ex.R7 written by Deputy Chief Auditor/ Central Zone, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana to Chief Auditor, PSEB, Patiala and its reply Ex.R6 given by Director/Sales-I, For Chief Engineer/Commercial, PSEB, Patiala is of no help to the OPs-Board. The aforesaid two letters are not sufficient to charge the complainant (who is a domestic consumer) by taking the load factor of 100% instead of 40%. The aforesaid letter Ex.R6 has not been notified by the government/PSEB and no authenticity can be attached to the said letters. Moreover, the reply Ex.R6 to the letter Ex.R7 does not clarify that the complainant’s case (who is a domestic consumer) falls in the category ‘e’ of ‘direct theft’ and that he can be charged by taking 100% load factor. Had the intention of the OPs-Board to charge the domestic consumer in case of direct theft by taking 100% load factor then the same would have been find mentioned in the column © of rule (1) of the said circular. The category of ‘domestic’ has not been further distinguished into direct or indirect theft of energy cases. Therefore, the difference of the amount to pay the impugned amount taking 100% load factor instead of 40% (already charged) by the OPs-Board was illegal and invalid.<br /> 9. Moreover, in the instant case the alleged checking was conducted on 3.10.2007 whereas the new Electricity Act, 2003 came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2008. Thus, the case of the complainant is not covered under the aforesaid new Act, but has been dealt with according to the old regulations of Circular no.53/2006. <br /> 10. Furthermore, the OPs-Board is estopped by their own act and conduct to raise the fresh demand from the complainant who is a domestic consumer because he had already been charged for ‘theft of energy’ by taking 40% load factor. Hence, the OPs-Board has wrongly and illegally issued the fresh demand notice to the complainant to pay the impugned amount by taking the load factor of 100% instead of 40% for which he has already been charged. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board in demanding the impugned amount.<br /> 11. To prove the aforesaid contention, the complainant produced his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of receipt Ex.A2, copies of notices Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Addl. S.E. Ex.R1 and other documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R7 and we discard the same.<br /> 12. The ld. counsel for the parties 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 has merit and the same is accepted. Hence, the impugned demand of Rs.6995/- raised by the OPs-Board vide notice no.1627 dated 05.08.2008 is set aside and quashed. The OPs-Board is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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 /> hrg*<br />