BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No.94 of 2008 Instituted On: 08.08.2008 Date of Service: 04.09.2008 Decided on 23.10.2008 Paramjit Singh aged 35 years son of Sh.Ram Singh son Sh.Gurbax Singh resident of village Bohna, Tehsil and District Moga. complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary at Mall, Patiala. 2. XEN, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban, Moga. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Charik, District Moga. .Opposite parties. COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member. Present: Sh.J.S.Chadha, Adv.counsel for the complainant. Sh.Satvir Singh,Adv.counsel for the Ops. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Paramjit Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) through its Secretary and others-Opposite parties (herein after refereed to as Board) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.40622/- raised vide bill dated 1732 dated 23.07.2008 and revised notice No.2049 dated 2.09.2008 and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Paramjit Singh complainant is a consumer of Ops-Board. The domestic electric connection bearing account No.BH 64/176 has been running in the name of Sh.Ram Singh father of the complainant who has since been died about four years ago. The complainant has been using this connection and regularly paying the bills and nothing is due against him. The complainant received a memo no.1732 dated 23.07.2008 in which Ops-Board raised a demand Rs.40622/- on account of theft of energy by affixing direct wire from main cable. The complainant has approached the Ops-Board time and again and requested to withdraw the impugned amount, but to no effect. The complainant also submitted one application for removing joints in the electric cable which was running on the roof top of his house and requested to replace the said wire. Said application was marked to Sh.Amarjit Singh, JE on 26.5.2008 who assured the complainant to replace the same, but to no effect. 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.5000/- as compensation beside costs of litigation. Hence the present complaint. 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 the complainant has got no locus standie to file the present complaint before this Forum. Actually the complainant is not a consumer of OPs-Board because the domestic connection BH 64/186 has been installed having sanctioned load of 1.840 KW in the name of his father Sh.Ram Singh son of Sh.Gurbax Singh resident of Village Bahona. The complainant never informed regarding the death of Ram Singh to OPs-Board till date. It was further averred that the complainant never applied for transfer of said connection in his name, so complainant is not a consumer of the OPs-board. That the premises of the complainant was checked by Sh.Balwinder Nath JE alongwith other officials of the OPs-Board on 22.07.2008 in the presence of the complainant and found him stealing the energy by applying Kundi from the PVC wire over the roof and it was a case of theft of energy. Copy of the checking report was supplied to the complainant, but he refused to sign it. Thereafter, the copy of checking report No.1732 dated 23.07.2008 raising a revised demand of Rs.40622/- was served upon the complainant under section 126 of the electric Act 2003. The complainant had not deposited the same till date. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of notice Ex.A2, copy of application Ex.A3, copy of notice Ex.A4 and closed the evidence. 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.XEN and Sh.S.Raj Singh, SDO as Ex.R1, copy of checking report Ex.R2, copy of notice Ex.R3, copy of assessment Ex.R4, and affidavit of Sh.Balwinder Nath as Ex.R5 and closed their evidence. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.J.S.Chadha, 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. 7. Sh.J.S.Chadha, ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned amount demand of Rs.40622/- raised vide notice No.1732 dated 23.07.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant was not stealing the electricity. Ld.counsel for the complainant also argued that the complainant has submitted an appliction to Sh.Amarjit Singh JE for removing joints in the wire running over the roof of his house. 8. On the other hand Sh.Satvir Singh ld. counsel for the OPs-Board has argued that the present complaint is not maintainable because the electric connection is not in the name of Sh.Paramjit Singh, complainant. The complainant has no right or title or interest to file the present complaint. The said connection is running in the name of his father Sh.Ram Singh who died four years ago, but the complainant did not dare to transfer the same in his name. The application for removing the joint of PVC was not submitted in the office and no diary number has been mentioned in the application. So, the complainant has failed to prove that he has become a consumer of the OPs-Board. 9. For arguments sake, if it is presumed that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs-Board and the complaint filed by him is maintainable even then the impugned demand is legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops-Board. Admittedly, the complainant was stealing the electricity by affixing direct wire from the PVC running on the roof top of the house. Hence, the notice served upon the consumer was according to the rules and regulations of the PSEB and the OPs-Board is thus legally entitled to recover the impugned amount of Rs.40622/-. 10. The application submitted by the complainant to Sh.Amarjit Singh JE seems to be false and can not be given any weight because there is no stamp of the office of concerned Sub Division or any diary number on it. Thus, this contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove if he moved any application for the removal of the joint in the wire on the roof top of his house. 11. To prove aforesaid contention, the Ops-Board produced joint affidavit of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.XEN and Sh.S.Raj Singh, SDO as Ex.R1, copy of checking report Ex.R2, copy of notice Ex.R3, copy of assessment Ex.R4. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit of the complainant Ex.A1 and other documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A4. 12. Ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room. (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum, Dated:23.10.2008.
