Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/90/2022

Satish Kumar S/o Bachna Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.malik

22 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint Case No.90 of 2022

Date of instt: 2.3.2022

                                                Date of Decision: 22.03.2022.

 

Satish Kumar aged 51 years son of Shri Bachha Ram resident of house No.26, Indira colony, Post Office village Ratgal Tehsil Thanesar Disitrict Kurukshetra.

                                                ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

 

1.Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director C-16, Vidhyut Sadan, Sector 6, Panchkula.

2.The Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, UHBVN Pipli Office in Sector 8, Kurukshetra..

                 

                                                                             ..………Opposite parties.

 

                         Complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act.  

 

Before       Smt.  Mrs.Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

 

Present:     Shri M.S.Malik, Adv. for complainant.

                Sh.Suresh Chand Saini Advocate for the Ops.

           

ORDER     

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Satish Kumar against UHBVN Limited etc., the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is consumer qua the Ops vide electricity connection bearing account No. 8572596791 installed in the name of the complainant. The complainant is regularly paying the electricity bills. It is alleged that one week ago employees of the Ops came at the premises of the complainant and told him that some amount is outstanding in the name of his father Bachna Ram in his account bearing  No.5870561. Shri Bachna Ram has already died in the year 2012. The Ops asked the complainant to deposit the said amount failing which the connection of the complainant was asked to be disconnected. The complainant showed his inability to pay the said amount, if any because he is residing separately from his father for the last twenty years.  It is further stated that on 28.2.2022, when the complainant was out of home, then  employees of the Ops came and disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant which is wrong and illegal one. The Ops have neither issued any notice nor he was informed prior to disconnection of the connection. It is submitted that the school going children of the complainant are suffering and such an act on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to restore the connection of the complainant and be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.one lacs for the deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

3.             Upon notice Ops appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the answering Ops have taken action u/s 135 and 152 of the Electricity Act 2003 and the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the present case.  The  checking of the premises by the team  was done  in the presence of one  Ritu and found using direct supply from the nearest LT line with the help of 2/c PVC approximately three meter long black colour. Hence this is the case of direct theft of electricity. Supply was disconnected and the cable was taken into custody. Videography  was taken for evidence purposes. The copy of LL-1  dated 30.7.2020 has been attached.  On the basis checking report, the assessment was made and the notice u/s 135 of the Electricity Act 2003  bearing No.SDPPL/2020/461 dated 4.8.2020 was issued and the complainant was directed to deposit the payment of Rs.1,13,727/- and the another notice bearing SDPPL/2020/462 dated 4.8.2020 was written to the SHO, I & P P.S. Ambala for registration of the FIR in the matter.  Thus, it is alleged that being a theft case, this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

 

4.             The complainant in support of his complaint has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed his  evidence.

5.             On the other hand, Ops in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 and closed its evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the case file.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the connection of the complainant  bearing account no. 8572596791 has been wrongly and illegally disconnected by the Ops on 28.2.2022. It is argued that in fact the connection bearing NO.5870561 belonged to his father Bachna Ram regarding which the alleged LL-1 Ex.R-1 has been prepared and the amount of penalty relating to the connection of Bachna Ram bearing account NO.5870561 is not liable to be paid by the complainant. He has further argued that the complainant is  residing in the separate house and is having separate ration card Ex.C-5 and Bachna Ram was having separate ration card Ex.C-6. It is argued that said Bachna Ram has since died and death certificate of Bachna Ram is Ex.C-7. It is also argued that the LL-1 has been simply prepared on the asking of one Ritu and house of the complainant has never been raided and no electricity theft was extracted from the house of the complainant.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has argued that the connection bearing No. 8572596791 has been legally disconnected by the Ops on 28.2.2022 and in the said premises there was use of electricity directly and LL-1 was legally prepared. The notice u/s 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 was rightly issued to the complainant. Vide notice Ex.R-3 amount of Rs.1,13,727.00 was rightly demanded by the complainant for illegally using the electricity directly. The notice Ex.R-4 was also legally issued.  It is further argued that the connection 8572596791 was obtained by the complainant  after checking of his premises and as  there was defaulting amount on the premises in question, therefore, without the payment of the penalty, the connection was illegally obtained by the complainant in the same premises.

9.             After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the complainant was found committing theft of energy. The supply of the premises was disconnected, when electricity was found committing in the premises of the complainant. The complainant Satish Kumar had no  electricity connection as on 30.7.2020 the day when the electricity theft was found in the premises. After the checking of the complainant was made, he applied for the connection immediately on the same day. Both the parties have kept mum on the point whether any connection in the name of Bachna Ram was continue on the day of theft or it was disconnected prior to checking in question. Thus, it is proved that on the day of alleged checking, the complainant has obtained the new connection bearing No.. 8572596791 in his name to avoid the liability of payment of penalty for electricity theft. Thus, the argument of the complainant that the complainant was not committing theft of energy is devoid of any force. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  LL-1 report regarding theft of energy was prepared on 30.07.2020. The perusal of the mark A shows that on 30.7.2020, that   the complainant on the same day applied for a new connection for the defaulting premises which was released to him on 25.8.2020 and by way of this complaint, he has sought restoration of  the said  connection obtained by  him. It is also pertinent to mention here that the notice Ex.R-2 was also received by the complainant.

                Further, the complainant has challenged the LL-1 in this case and has stated that he complainant is not liable to pay the penalty. In our mind, the cases of theft of energy cannot be decided by this Commission and as such the present complaint merits dismissed for want of maintainability also.

 

10.            In view of our above discussion and findings, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated 22.03.2022.                                                       President.

 

                                                Member             Member.