BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 97 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 18.08.2008<br /> Date of Service: 11.09.2008<br /> Decided On: 31.10.2008<br /> <br /> Ramji Dass (aged 40 years) son of Sh.Chiranji Lal, resident of Basti Gobindgarh, Moga, 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. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, North Sub Division, 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.Ashok Sharma, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Ramji Dass 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.66826/- raised vide notice dated 05.08.2008 and also to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Ramji Dass complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.BR/55/0363 installed at his residential premises with sanctioned load of 3.60 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.343 dated 14.02.2008 for Rs.8128/- on account of ‘unauthorized use of electricity’ which he deposited vide receipt no.409 dated 17.03.2008. That now again the OPs-Board sent a notice dated 05.08.2008 vide which they raised a demand of Rs.66826/- due to difference of amount on account of ‘theft of electricity’ under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. That the alleged demand is altogether wrong and illegal and issued only to harass the complainant and the same is liable to be set aside. That no criteria had ever been adopted. That the alleged demand is time barred and against the public policy. 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.30000/- 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 04.2.2008 Sh.Tarsem Lal, Junior Engineer alongwith other officials of the OPs-Board 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 near the meter and the meter was not recording any consumption. The checking was made in the presence of 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. 343 dated 14.02.2008 of provisional order of assessment for ‘unauthorized use of electricity’ was served upon the complainant to deposit Rs.8128/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and the impugned demand raised by them was deposited by the complainant on 17.3.2008. That the said amount has been calculated taking the load factor as 30%. 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 detected this mistake and raised further demand of Rs.66882/- 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, affidavit of Tarsem Lal J.E Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copies of notices Ex.R4 and Ex.R5, copy of sundry register Ex.R6, copies of letters Ex.R7 and Ex.R8, copy of circular Ex.R9 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Ashok Sharma 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.Ashok Sharma ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.66826/- raised vide notice no.1629 dated 5.8.2008 by the OPs-Board is wrong and illegal because the complainant had already paid Rs.8128/- vide receipt no.409 dated 17.03.2008 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.343 dated 14.2.2008 he was directed to pay Rs.8128/- which he deposited vide receipt no.409 dated 17.03.2008.<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 Ex.R9 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.R8 written by Deputy Chief Auditor/ Central Zone, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana to Chief Auditor, PSEB, Patiala and its reply Ex.R7 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.R7 has not been notified by the government/PSEB and no authenticity can be attached to the said letters. Moreover, the reply Ex.R7 to the letter Ex.R8 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, 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 /> 10. 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 affidavits of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Addl. S.E. Ex.R1, affidavit of Tarsem Lal J.E. Ex.R2 and other documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R9 and we discard the same.<br /> 11. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 12. 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.66826/- raised by the OPs-Board vide notice no.1629 dated 05.08.2008 from the complainant 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 />