Complaint No. 862/8.12.2008
Date of order: 4.12.2009
Satwant Singh son of late Sh. Karnail Singh, son of Late Sh. Waryam Singh, resident of VPO Harion kalan, Tehsil Khanna, Ludhiana.
(Complainant)
Vs.
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Khanna No.1, Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana through Asstt. Executive Engineer.

(Opposite party)

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.
Present:

Sh. M.S. Sethi Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Yashpaul Advocate for the opposite party.
O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Being holder of domestic electric connection of account no. RF430417W installed by the opposite party in the name of his grand father Sh. Waryam Singh, complainant has assailed the bill dated 7.10.2008 claiming Rs.10,119/- by way of sundry charges by filing the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. His case is that this connection was never checked, nor he ever used energy unauthorisedly and has been paying regularly consumption charges of this connection. Therefore, demand is null, void and illegal.

2. Opposite party claimed in reply that this Fora has no jurisdiction to try the complaint as the complainant was indulging in theft of energy and the complaint is not maintainable. Pleaded that electric connection was checked by Sh. Baljinder Singh, Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement, on 5.9.2007 in the presence of the consumer. When Sh. Baljinder Singh got door of the house of the complainant opened and asked him to get the meter checked, he then immediately closed the door. Because, he was using energy by placing kundi below the terminal plate and stopped the meter by affixing wire in the grip. After removing kundi and affixing grip, he then opened the door again. Though kundi was seen by the checking officer from the window of the house. Sparks of the meter terminal were lying there and holes of the same were very hot. 2-C PVC wire was laid below the board of the meter. So, he found that it was a case of theft of energy and the checking officer also noted for installation of the meter outside the gate in MCB. Checking report was prepared but consumer refused to sign the same. Hence, on the strength of such report, notice/memo dated 22.10.2007 for payment of Rs. 10,119/- was served, but he failed to deposit the same. So, amount was debited through sundry in his regular bill dated 7.10.2008. Demand is justified and legal.

3. In order to prove their respective contentions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. Argued by ld. counsel for the complainant that no checking of his connection was done as apparent from checking report dated 5.9.2007 (Ex.R1) wherein at one place account no. was mentioned as 43/417 and at another place as RF43/497. So, they checked some other connection and wrongly mentioned having checked connection of the complainant. Further argued that non checking of the connection is apparent as the basis thereof demand was raised after one year of so called checking vide demand notice Ex.R.2.

6. Both these submissions were contested to be wrong by ld. counsel for the opposite party when argued that connection was checked in the presence of the consumer who refused to sign the same as was caught red handed while committing theft of energy.

7. As far as first point raised by the complainant is concerned, no doubt, checking report Ex.R.1 contains reference of two account numbers i.e. 43/417 and RF43/497. Whereas electric connection of the complainant is bearing account no. RF43/417 as mentioned in the complaint. According to ld. counsel for the opposite party, initially wrong account number of the consumer was recorded in the checking report and when correct number was known, mistake was corrected. But checking was of the connection of the complainant having meter no. 45386 as recorded in the checking report. This very meter bearing no.45386 is installed in the premises of the complainant as apparent from bill Ex.C.1 dated 7.10.2008. So, it means it was the electric connection of the complainant which was checked. But inadvertently his account number was wrongly recorded as 43/497 in place of RF43/417 and mistake was rectified. So, apparent that it was electric connection of the complainant which only was inspected and checked.

8. As per affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh. Baljinder Singh Senior Executive Engineer checking was done in the presence of the consumer and through window he saw the consumer having placed kundi below the terminal plate to stop the meter. As soon as he got door of the house of the consumer opened and intimated him to check his electric connection, he immediately closed the door as was using energy by placing kundi below terminal plate and affixing wire in the grip. After removing evidence of theft, he opened the door and the kundi which was seen through window was found missing, but noticed spark of the meter terminal lying there and holes were very hot. A 2-C PVC wire was laid below the Board of the meter. He was satisfied that it was case of theft of energy, evidence of which was removed by the complainant after closing the door. Checking was made by the Senior Executive Engineer. We have no reason to disbelieve his version contained in the checking report Ex.R.1. Checking was done in the presence of the consumer, so, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant contrary. Therefore, point raised by the complainant is having no force.

9. Second point is that demand was raised after one year. Checking is dated 5.9.2007 and on the basis thereof memo Ex.R.2 dated 22.10.2007 was issued calling the complainant to pay Rs.10,119/-. When he failed to pay the same, this amount was claimed by way of sundry charges in his regular bill Ex.C.1 dated 7.10.2008. By claiming amount by way of sundry charges, after one year of the checking would not show that demand is void. Because, demanded amount was already sought under memo Ex.R2 dated 22.10.2007. Therefore, if the same was charged by way of sundry charges in the regular bill, it would not amount to raising of demand after a long delay. Hence, this point is also not having any force.

10. In view of these aspects, it is apparent that complainant was found committing theft of energy, so, was rightfully charged by the opposite party for committing theft of energy. Hence, finding no merit, the complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.