Punjab State Electricity Board

[adv.singh]

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 171 of 2009.

DATE OF INSTT. 24.3.2009.

DATE OF ORDER.18.12.2009.



Gurbachan Singh son of Inder Singh, Proprietor M/s. Pooni Engineering Works, G.T.Road, Simbal Batala, R/o Guru Nanak Nagar, Bhullar Road, Batala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.

Complainant.



VERSUS



1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2. S.D.O. Sub Division, (East) Punjab State Electricity Board, Batala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.

Opposite parties.

BEFORE
R.K.KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

S.S.SANDHU, MEMBER.

SMT.JAGDEEP KAUR, MEMBER.



PRESENT.

Sh.P.S.Saini, counsel for the complainant.

Opposite party proceeded against exparte. ORDER

R.K.KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.



Gurbachan Singh, complainant has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala and others U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date) (hereinafter referred as the Act) with the allegations that he is carrying on the work of shaper, planner, wood planner and drilling etc. in the name and style of Pooni Engineers Works, Batala to earn his livelihood as he has no other means of living. He has taken an electric connection from the Board bearing no. G12SP191045L to run this business and as such is the consumer of the Board. In July 2008, some fault developed in the meter and it stopped working. He made the complaint about it to the S.D.O. concerned but the meter was not changed. It was changed in January 2009. The energy charges of the intervening period i.e. from July 2008 to January 2009 were claimed on average basis as detailed given in para no.3 (i) to (vii) of the complaint. His average monthly consumption had been up to Rs.900/- a month and never exceeded than this. The Board should have claimed Rs.6300/-, @ Rs.900/- a month but it recovered Rs.11,600/-, Rs.5300/- in excess from him. He made a request to the S.D.O. concerned to refund the excess amount recovered from him. But instead of conceding his request, a notice bearing no.213 dated 13.2.2009 claiming Rs.7578/- was served upon him without any rhyme or reasons. Against it, he filed the complaint no.123 of 2009 Gurbachan Singh Vs. P.S.E.B in the Forum but later on, withdrew it and it was dismissed as withdrawn being premature. He filed objections against the impugned demand but the opposite party dismissed it without assigning any valid reasons & cause vide letter dated 4.3.2009. Copy enclosed. The impugned demand of the Board is illegal, null and void and un-called for. It is intended to recover the amount in question by disconnecting his electric connection. Complainant claimed Rs.20,000/- as damages for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience he suffered, beside the litigation expenses.

2. Electricity Board through S.D.O. Sub Divn (East), Batala, appeared, filed its reply negating the allegations of the complainant. However, it was admitted that complainant is the consumer of the Board having taken an electric connection in his shop. It was stated that on 5.2.2009 Assistant Executive Engineer, Batala checked the connection of the complainant and found the meter burnt. Complainant was asked to deposit the value of the meter. Energy charges from December 2007 to May 2008 were ordered to be claimed on average basis, keeping in view the previous consumption of the complainant which coms to 837 units a month. Provisional notice claiming Rs.7578/- was served upon the complainant on 13.2.2009 for unauthorized use of Electricity as is envisaged U/S 126 of the Electricity Act and commercial circular no.53 of 2006. Complainant dragged the matter in the Fora, filed the complaint & it was dismissed being pre-mature vide order dated 3.3.2009. Complaint filed the second complaint on the same cause of action and is not tenable. Rs.7604/- were claimed from the complainant as sundry charges vide bill impugned. He is liable to pay it.

3. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copies of bill, notice, and application etc. Ex.C2 to Ex.C18.

4. Electricity Board failed to produce its evidence in spite of the fact that three successive opportunities were given to it within a period stretching over two months and ultimately none appeared on its behalf on 24.9.2009 & consequently it was proceeded against exparte.

5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant, have gone through the written arguments filed by it and also material on record.

6. As per the Electricity Board, the connection of the complainant was checked by the Assistant Engineer, Sub Division (East) Batala on 5.2.2009 in his presence and found the meter burnt. Checking report was prepared at the spot. It was ordered that the cost of the meter, energy charges from December 2007 to May 2008 be recovered on average basis 837 units, a month came out the average consumption of the complainant. Consequently provisional order of assessment was served calling upon the complainant to file the objections if any, against it and also to appear in person to say anything if he wants to vide no.213 dated 13.2.2009. Objections against it were filed by the complainant. After perusing the same final order of assessment confirming the earlier order was passed, and was served upon the complainant on 4.3.2009 Ex.C6. But nothing was placed on the record by the Board to prove it. No checking report was filed. No affidavit of the concerned Assistant Engineer who allegedly checked the connection or the persons accompanying him were placed on the file. Pleadings cannot take the place of evidence. Since nothing was produced by the opposite parties so it remains unproved and unestablished that the connection of the complainant was checked by the Assistant Engineer Sub Divn. (City) Batala and the meter was found burnt.

7. A perusal of the assessment order Ex.C6 reveals that the meter was got checked from the M.E.Lab, Batala. It appears quite ridiculous. This stand of the Board is beyond its pleadings. Nowhere it is pleaded in the reply that the meter of the complainant was removed, packed, sealed in a cardboard box and was sent to the M.E.Lab to get it checked. If the meter was removed, sealed and sent to the lab then this thing should have been categorically pleaded in the reply. Further there is nothing that the compliance of the mandatory provisions of Commercial Circular No.45 of 2007 and 10 of 2001 were complied with while removing and taking the meter in possession. It lays down that whenever the meter of any consumer is removed, it be packed, sealed in a cardboard box in his presence and it be got signed from him. Notice be also served upon him to come present in the M.E.Lab to get the meter checked in his presence. Since the abovesaid provision of law was not complied with in this case, so this fact vitiates the notice impugned.

8. Further, the opposite parties placed on the record the consumption data of the complainant from January 2006 to November 2009 pursuant to the notice issued to it. For convenience it is referred as Ex.CX in the order. A perusal of it reveals that the status of the meter is shown as 'O' means OK from 12/7 to 5/2008. Complainant paid the energy charges of the said period as per the reading of the meter & bills issued by the Board. If it is so then it could not be made out as to how the Board ordered to recover the energy charges of the said period on average basis. No explanation is extended by the opposite parties in this regard. Had the meter of the complainant been defective during the disputed period then there was every justification to claim the energy charges on average basis.

9. Apart all this, the evidence of the complainant remained un-rebutted and no reasons appear to belie it.

10. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby allowed and the demand of Rs.7604/- as sundry charges raised vide bill dated 14.3.2009 is held as illegal, null & void and is hereby quashed & the opposite parties are restrained to recover it. If the complainant had paid any amount against this notice then the same be refunded to him immediately. Parties are left to bear own costs.

11. This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because of huge pendency of the cases.



12. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.

[adv.singh]

C.C.No, 284/24.8.2009

Decided on 16.12.2009


Chaman Singh aged about 65 years son of Sh Karam Singh resident of village Jassowal Tehsil Garhshanker District Hoshiarpur.


Complainant


vs.


1.

Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2.

Punjab State Electricity Board Sub Division Saila Khurd District Hoshiarpur through its Sub Divisional Officer.


Opposite parties


Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.


Quorum: Sh.P.D.Goel,President,

Sh.A.S.Jauhar,Member.


Present; Sh Manoj Kumar Verma, counsel for the complainant.

Sh B.S.Choudhary, counsel for the OPs.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.

The complainant namely Chaman Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act.”. In short,the facts of the case are that the complainant is the holder of electricity connection no. H44-BC430106 N. The complainant is regularly paying the electricity bills, thus, he is a consumer of the OPs. That in the first week of March 2009, one official of the OP came to his house and asked him to pay Rs.25461/- as penalty without disclosing any reason. The complainant in order to avoid the disconnection, made the payment of Rs.25461/- on 9.3.2009.
2.

It is the allegation of the complainant that subsequently he came to know that penalty of Rs.25461/- has been made due to theft of energy. The complainant never committed theft of energy nor officials of the OP conducted the raid in his house. . The complainant made a request to the OP that penalty has been wrongly imposed upon him but of no consequences.
3.

It is the allegation of the complainant that he received electricity bill for the period 4.5.2009 to 4.7.2009 qua which sundry charges of Rs.10954/- had been added. The complainant approached the OPs with the request to withdraw the said demand but of no use. The OPs also failed to provide the detail of the amount imposed as penalty. The demand of Rs.25461/- and Rs.10954/- is stated to be illegal, hence this complaint.
4.

OPs filed the joint reply. Preliminary objections vis-a-vis maintainability,locus standi , suppression of material facts and jurisdiction were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. That the complainant is not the consumer of the OPs as the electricity connection is in the name of Charan Singh. It is replied that task force of the OPs headed by Tarlochan Singh checked the connection of the complainant on 6.3.2009. The consumer was caught red handed while stealing the energy. It was found that the complainant had removed the grips and fixed the direct wires in the PVC line and had by-passed the meter. The complainant had also switched off the main switch but the power was going on, as such, the consumer was committing theft of energy.. The checking report was prepared at the spot , however, the consumer refused to sign the checking report . That show cause notice no. 305 dated 6.3.2009 was served upon the complainant with direction to deposit Rs.25461/- on account of theft of power, which was deposited by him on 9.3.2009.
5.

It is further replied that the audit party checked the record of the consumer and found that amount of Rs.25461/- was wrongly calculated. That the amount of Rs. 10954/- was found due towards the complainant on account of theft of electricity. Accordingly, notice no. 833 dated 24.6.2009 was served upon the consumer to deposit the amount of Rs.10954/- but the consumer refused to accept the same.
6.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C-1, bill dated 04.08.2009 Ex CA,, 3.10.2008 Ex CB, 8.12.2008 Ex.CC, 1.2.2009 Ex CD, 31.3.2009 Ex.CE2.6.2009 Ex.CF, receipt Ex CG, CH, receipt dated 22.12.2008 Ex. CI, receipt dated 16.2.2009 Ex. CJ, receipt dated 17.6.2009 Ex.CK, receipt dated 9.3.2009 EX. CL and bill dated 3.8.2009 Ex. CM and closed the evidence.
7.

In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavits of Tarlochan Singh Ex.R-1,R-2, site checking report Ex.R-3, calculation sheet Ex.R-4, notice no. 305 Ex.R-5 and letter dated 24.6.2009 Ex.R-6 and closed the evidence.
8.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
9.

Ex. R-3 is an attested copy of the checking report placed on record by the opposite parties qua which it has been recorded that the complainant had removed the grips and fixed the direct wires in the PVC line and had by-passed the meter. The complainant had also switched off the main switch but the power was going on, as such, the consumer was committing theft of energy.. The checking report was prepared at the spot , however, the consumer refused to sign the same .
10.

The contents of the report – Ex. R-3 have been supported by the affidavit of Tarlochan Singh Sandhu, AEE, Ex. R-2 The said report has been prepared by the officials of the opposite parties in the discharge of their official duties, therefore, full reliance has been placed on this report, consequently, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and on the contrary, the opposite parties have succeeded to prove that the premises of the complainant was checked and the complainant was found committing theft of electricity. Calculation sheet Ex. R-4 is on the record.
11.

As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, with the result, she cannot claim any sympathy from this Forum, thus, the complaint is dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

[adv.singh]

C.C.No, 202/19.06.2009

Decided on : 3.12.2009


Bachittar Singh aged 30 years son of Sh Babu Ram r/o VPO Dhamian Tehsil Mukerian District Hoshiarpur.


Complainant


vs.


1.

Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Mukerian Tehsil Mukerian District Hoshiarpur through its Sub Divisional Officer.
2.

Horticulture Department, Chhauni Kalan, Hoshiarpur through its Deputy Director.
3.

Soil and Water Conservation Department, Mini Secretariat, Hoshiarpur through its Divisional Soil Conservation Officer.


Opposite parties


Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.


Quorum: Sh.P.D.Goel,President,

Sh.A.S.Jauhar,Member.


Present; Sh Gursagar Singh, counsel for the complainant.

Sh B.B.Handa, counsel for OP No.1.

Sh Balwinder Singh-agent of OP No.2.

Sh. Balbir Singh – agent of OP No. 3.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.

The complainant namely Bachittar Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act.”. In short,the facts of the case are that when the complainant came to know with regard to issuance of electricity connections on priority basis under “Micro Sprinkle Drip Irrigation Scheme” , he applied for the grant of electricity connection on priority basis under the said scheme to OP No.2 and 3. That OP No.2 advised the complainant to purchase the necessary material for the installation of the tubewell connection under the said scheme, as such, he purchased the accessories to the tune of Rs.26,000/- from Ajay Industrial Corporation, Mohali, per directions of OP NO.2.
2.

It is further the case of the complainant that OP No.2 made recommendation to OP No.1 for the release of tubewell connection on priority basis. The complainant contacted OP No.1 , who directed him to deposit Rs. 200/-,Rs.1950/- and Rs.15000/-, which was duly deposited by him. It is further the case of the complainant that on the asking of the OPs, he constructed one room for installation of tubewell connection by spending Rs. 55,000/-. The amount of Rs.21,000/- was spent on electricity fitting . That after completion of all the formalities, the complainant requested OP No.1 to release the connection but the Electricity Board is delaying the matter on one pretext or the other, hence this complaint.
3.

OP No.1 filed the reply. Preliminary objections vis-a-vis maintainability and jurisdiction were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that connections to the consumers are to be released as per procedure and rules of PSEB. That an application no. 31258 dated 24.1.2008 was received in the office of replying OP, and thereafter, demand notice dated 2.7.2008 was issued to the complainant. The complainant deposited the amount alongwith test report on 9.7.2008. That every consumer seeking connection has to provide the necessary infrastructure at his own cost. The procedure was laid down for releasing the connections under “Micro Sprinkle Drip Irrigation Scheme” vide CC No.59/06 dated 10.11.2006, and thereafter, CC No. 55/08 dated 11.8.2008 was issued by the Electricity Board with regard to release of connections with overriding priority to general category applicants registered upto 31.03.1990, and thereafter, another CC no.63/2008 dated 21.10.2008 was issued, whereby date of applicants was extended upto 31.12.1990.. It is further replied that in joint category of Micro Sprinkle Drip Irrigation system and Ex Serviceman, per CC no. 59/2008, the seniority of complainant figures at Sr no. 3. There are 29 applicants of general category upto 31.12.1990.
4.

OP No.2 filed a separate reply. It is denied that the replying OP advised the complainant to purchase the necessary material for installation of tubewell connection and accessories for installation of Micro Sprinkle Drip Irrigation system. Infact, the replying OP has no role in installation of Micro Sprinkle Drip Irrigation system and construction of room. The replying OP is to carry out joint inspection of Micro system for suitability alongwith DSO ( Divisional Conservation Officer).
5.

OP No.3 filed a separate reply. It is replied that replying OP has paid 50% subsidy to the farmers. The replying OP has no concern with the release of tubewell connection and construction of room.
6.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. C-1, receipt of Rs.1950/- Mark C-2, receipt of Rs.15000/- Mark C-3, bill dated 15.9.07 Mark C-4, receipt of PNB Mark C-5, system installation report Mark C-6 and photographs Ex.C-2 to C-4 and closed the evidence.
7.

In rebuttal, the opposite party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Kuldip Singh Ex.OP-1, A & A form Ex.OP-2, letter dated 28.12.2007 Ex.OP-3, demand notice Ex.OP-4, test report Ex.OP-5 , T R dated 9.7.2008 Ex.OP-6 , pending test reports Ex. OP-7 and pending test reports per CC No. 59/08 Ex. OP-8 and closed the evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurkanwal Singh Ex.OP-9, whereas, the OP No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit – Ex. R-1 and closed the evidence.
8.

The parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
9.

Admittedly, the OP No. 1 has not disputed with regard to release of electricity connection on priority basis under Micro Sprinkler Irrigation Scheme. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant applied for electricity connection on priority basis under the said scheme to the OP No. 1 on 24.1.2008. It is also an admitted fact that demand notice dated 2.7.2008 was issued and the complainant deposited the amount alongwith test report on 2.7.2008 . The complainant purchased accessories for installment of Micro Sprinke System for irrigation . The OP No.1-PSEB has taken the plea that the procedure was laid down for releasing the connections under “Micro Sprinkle Drip Irrigation Scheme” vide CC No.59/06 dated 10.11.2006, and thereafter, CC No. 55/08 dated 11.8.2008 was issued by the Electricity Board with regard to release of connections with overriding priority to general category applicants registered upto 31.03.1990, and thereafter, another CC no.63/2008 dated 21.10.2008 was issued, whereby date of applicants was extended upto 31.12.1990.. It is further pleaded that in joint category of Micro Sprinkle Drip Irrigation system and Ex Serviceman, per CC no. 59/2008, the seniority of complainant figures at Sr no.3. There are 29 applicants of general category upto 31.12.1990.
10.

The complainant has produced on record the System Installation Report Mark C-6 vide which it is certified that the complainant is eligible to get the facility of top priority of Electric Tubewell Connection . It was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that on the assurance given by OP No.1, the complainant spent huge amount for constructing the room and also purchased the material but later on the OP No.1 did not release the connection to the complainant.
11.

It is true that the complainant submitted application form Ex. OP-2, with OP No.1 for getting the connection and also deposited the requisite charges. . The said fact has not been denied by OP No.1 . Since the complainant submitted the application form for release of electricity connection and also deposited the requisite charges prior to issuance of commercial circular no. 55/08 dated 11.8.2008 and 63/2008 dated 21.10.2008, therefore, OP NO.1 had no legal right to ask the complainant to comply with the conditions contained in the said circulars as the same could not apply with retrospective effect.
12.

As a result of above discussion, the complaint is accepted and OP No.1 is directed to release the electricity connection to the complainant within two months from the date of the order. No order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.

[adv.singh]

Complaint No. 810/19.11.2008
Date of order: 9.12.2009.
Dharminder Singh son of Sh. Manjit Singh, resident of House No.867, Bhai himat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)
Vs.
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer Commercial, Model Town Special Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Ludhiana.

(Opposite parties)

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

-------------------------------------------------------------Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.

Present:
Sh. K.P. Singh Advocate for the complainant.

Smt. Inderjit Kaur Advocate for opposite party.

O R D E R

PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER:

1. Domestic electric connection of account no. MT61/1351 is installed in the name of the complainant. The complainant is using the said electric connection since its installation and making payment of the bills regularly. Qua this very connection, opposite party issued memo no.1344 dated 8.10.2008, raising demand of Rs. 18,725/- by leveling false allegation of unauthorized use of electricity. The complainant contended that the opposite party did not provide any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order, which is against the natural justice. Even no checking of his connection was ever done. Moreover, in the notice/memo no date of checking is mentioned. He never committed any illegally for using the electricity in unauthorized way as alleged in the notice and it is beyond his means to pay such a huge amount. Hence, the demand raised by the opposite party is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. Opposite party in reply claimed that complaint is not maintainable as complainant is not a consumer under them. This Fora has no jurisdiction to try the same. Pleaded that electric connection bearing account no. MT-61/1351 was checked on 4.8.2008 by Sh. Narinder Kumar J.E. of Unit No.1 and checking report was duly prepared mentioning therein that the consumer was using electricity by affixing direct wire from PVC joint of electric cable by bye passing the meter. On the basis of checking, provisional assessment order dated 15.9.08 was issued to the complainant and he was given opportunity to file objections against the said demand within seven days. But he failed to do so. As such, final assessment order was issued on 8.10.2008 directing him to deposit the finally assessed charges within seven days or to approach appropriate authority which is S.D.M. But inspite of that complainant filed complaint malafidely without any reason and being lack of jurisdiction and the same is liable to be dismissed.

3. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavit and documents and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that two affidavits have been filed by Sh. Narinder Kumar J.E. which are contradictory to each other. In one affidavit which was filed along with written statement on 26.2.2009, it is written that checking was done in the presence of the complainant, who refused to sign the checking report. In the other affidavit filed on 3.11.2009 while leading evidence, same content is missing with another addition that the complainant was caught red handed stealing energy by way of affixing direct kundi connection from PVC electric cable of PSEB and theft of energy case was established against the consumer of such connection as per checking report. This content is not mentioned in the previous affidavit filed on 26.2.2009. Consequently, these affidavits filed by Sh. Narinder Kumar J.E. are of no help to the opposite party.

5. Moreover, ld. counsel for the complainant further argued that even the checking report Ex.R1 does not bear the signatures of the complainant or his representative, which shows that checking, was not made in his presence. Even no remarks regarding refusal to sign the checking report are given on it. It is as such evident that the checking was not done in the presence of the complainant or his representative. It was in violation of the mandatory regulation 45/97. Copy of the checking report was also not supplied to the consumer. Further more, to prove the charge of theft, direct electric wire from PVC joint through which the electricity was stolen, was not seized and produced. So, the main best evidence to prove the charge of theft stood withheld by the opposite party. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the opposite party has failed to substantiate its charge of theft of energy by the complainant.

6. In these circumstance, we are left with no alternative to conclude that the opposite party has failed to prove the commission of theft of energy by the complainant. Therefore the demand of Rs.18,725/- raised by the opposite party against the complainant on account of theft of energy vide memo no. 1344 dated 8.10.2008 is not justified. Hence, we allow the complaint and prohibit opposite party from realising this amount from the complainant. In case any fraction thereof under the orders of the Fora or otherwise is deposited be refunded to him within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

[adv.singh]

Complaint No. 922/26.12.2008.
Date of order: 8.12.2009.
Manju Goyal aged 47 years wife of Shri Narinder Goyal, resident of H. No.2767/2, (14-B) Sunder Nagar, behind Ritambra School, Ludhiana

(Complainant)
Vs.
Punjab State Electricity Board, Kakkowal Road, Ludhiana through its XEN/SDO.

(Opposite party)
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.

Present:
Sh. R.K. Bhandari Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. A.S. Walia Advocate for opposite party.
O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant is a consumer under the opposite party of domestic electric connection of account no.E 41-1A010076. Qua this connection, opposite party footed her with bill dated 21.8.2008 demanding a sum of Rs.50,230/- by way of sundry charges. This demand raised in the bill stand assailed and challenged in the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to be null, void and illegal.

2. Opposite party contested the complaint on averments that it is not maintainable as she was indulging in theft of energy, so, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the same. It is averred that connection of the complainant was checked on 18.1.2007 by A.A.E in the presence of the complainant and prepared the checking report. Consumer was found having made a joint at service cable near LT pole lying installed near the gate. The wire was affixed. Consequently, was found using electricity by bye passing the meter and as such was committing theft of electricity. At the time of checking, consumer snatched the wire from the hands of Sh. Lakha Singh lineman who was accompanying the A.E.E. Alongwith wire consumer ran away and locked the house from ground floor. Due to such reason, load of the house could not be checked. Earlier by mistake lesser amount was calculated, but after internal audit dated 22.5.2008 a sum of Rs.45,513/- was also found recoverable on account of theft of energy. So, the demand raised is legal.

3. Parties adduced 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 the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material n record.

5. In this case, we feel that opposite party are guilty of infringing mandatory provisions of section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Under that provision, in case of unauthorized use of energy, assessing authority was required to issue provisional assessment order intimating the consumer either to pay the amount or file objections, within certain period to the demand. In case of objecting to the demand, to provide opportunity of hearing to the consumer and thereafter pass final assessment order. Nothing sort of that was done in the instant case. We have no doubt that provisions of section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 are mandatory provisions and by their own option, officials of the opposite party can not disregard the same.

6. Now adverting to the merits of the allegations.

7. In order to prove the checking report Ex.R.1, affidavit Ex. RW2/A of Sh. H.S. Gill, A.E.E. is filed. As per his narration, connection was checked in the presence of the complainant who refused to sign the checking report and snatched the wire from the hands of Sh. Lakha Singh in his presence and locked the house from ground floor and ran away. In the instant case, consumer is a lady. Would it be possible for a lady to snatch a wire through which was allegedly committing theft of energy, from the hands of employee of the Electricity Board. Neither it would have been possible for her after snatching, to ran away from the spot and lock the house. Story so planted does not inspire confidence in the judicial minds. Moreover, no affidavit of Sh. Lakha Singh Lineman, from whose hands alleged wire was snatched, is filed. Hence, allegations so levelled against the complainant are difficult to be digested.

8. It was probably for such reason that story is planted. Therefore, no provisional assessment order was issued to the complainant. Straight way the demand was raised by way of sundry charges in her bill Ex.C.1 and C2.

9. Consequently, we feel that the demand so made by the opposite party form the complainant, is not justified and legal. Hence, the complaint is allowed and the demand of Rs. 52,330/- claimed by way of sundry charges from the complainant in her bill Ex.C2 dated 12.11.2008 is set aside and opposite party prohibited from realising that amount from her. In case any fraction of this amount is realized from the complainant under the orders of the Fora or otherwise, same be refunded to her. Opposite party is also ordered to pay litigation cost of Rs.1000/-(Rs. One Thousand only). Compliance of the order be made within 30 the receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

[adv.singh]

Complaint No. 753/22.10.2008
Date of order: 4.12.2009
Rajinder Pal Gupta son of late Sh. Ramji Dass, aged about 75 years, resident of House No.B-IX-1049, Kishore Building, Shiwala Road, Ludhiana.
(Complainant
Vs
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Patiala.
2. Punjab State Electricity Board, City East U-II, Sub Division E-22, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana through its XEN.
(Opposite parties)
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum:

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.
Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.
Present:

Sh. Rajiv Kaushal Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. T.P.S. Ahluwalia Advocate for opposite party.

O R D E R

RAJESH KUMAR, MEMBER:

1. Complainant is using the electricity from electric connection bearing account no. DE020937 installed in his name and making payment of the bills regularly. The electric connection was having sanctioned load of 4Kw. which was later on got enhanced to 10.560Kw. by completing all the requisite formalities and depositing the charges. But the bills were being sent for the earlier load of 4 kw. He was surprised to receive the bill bearing no.231 dated 12.8.2008 for the period 10.4.2008 to 12.8.2008, claiming Rs.8530/- including some arrears. Whereas, no arrears are due from him. He contacted the opposite party with request to correct the bill vide application dated 18.8.08 but they advised him to deposit the entire amount and assured that excess amount would be adjusted in the next bill. He deposited the amount under protest. Instead of adjusting the amount, another bill dated 13.10.08 was issued raising false claim of Rs.10,190/- as arrears, which he is not liable to pay. He again requested to correct the bill but opposite party started dilly dallying the matter on one pretext or the other and then flatly refused to make correction. They threatened to disconnect the electric connection in case the amount is not deposited. Averred that claim of the complainant is illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. Acts of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which complainant suffered mental tension, agony and harassment. It has been prayed that opposite party be directed to withdraw the illegal claim raised vide bill no.231 dated 12.8.2008 and bill no.186 dated 13.10.2008, to adjust the excess amount deposited by the complainant, to issue fresh bill claiming the actual consumption charges, to correct the name of the complainant in their records as Rajinder Pal Gupta instead of Ravinder Gupta and not to disconnect the electricity supply and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.

2. Opposite party in written statement has taken defence that complaint is not maintainable as this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. Electric connection no. DF-02/937 was granted to the complainant which is now having sanctioned load of about 4Kw. In the month of 6/2008, billing was done on D Code basis and bill on average consumption of 2089 units was charged and prepared and a sum of Rs.9326/-was found recoverable as average consumption charges, but out of the said amount, only sum of Rs.6660/- was deposited by the consumer which amount relates to spot billing scheme and difference of both the bills was Rs.2080/- including surcharge and this amount of Rs.2080 was included in the next bill and was shown as balance and in the month of 8/2008 due to F code bill on average basis of 2271 units including previous balance of Rs.2080/- total Rs.12,230/-was issued against the said connection, but consumer only got bill of spot billing for Rs.8530/- and deposited the same and as per ledger, balance remains Rs.3700/- to be recoverable against the said connection and in the month of 7/2008, MCO dated 17.7.2008 was issued and was effected on 22.7.2008 and meter was changed as per record of P.S.E.B. and in the month of 10/2008 due to C-code, new meter reading was noted 980 units, but final reading of removed old meter was not included and charged by P.S.E.B. and due to that reason on account of C-code, bill on average basis of 546 units was prepared and balance was also recoverable, total Rs.5930/- bill was recoverable, but consumer deposited Rs.5100/- and remaining amount along with surcharge was Rs.1370/- which was not deposited. In 10/2008, in spot billing, bill of Rs.9650/- was issued and in the month of 12/2008, reading was noted 3325 units and bill for consumption of 2345 units was prepared for Rs.11,380/- and in the said bill, sum of Rs.1370/- was also included which balance remains of 10/2008 and bill was prepared by spot billing machine and total bill of Rs.11,380/- was issued and whole amount is recoverable and demand is legal and genuine. Fact regarding installation of the electric connection in the name of complainant having sanctioned load of 11Kw. is admitted. Pleaded that due to clerical mistake, name of the complainant is mentioned as Ravinder Pal in the record but account number is the same. The demand is legal and genuine and was not excessive in any manner. Whole amount shown in the bill from time to time is correct and demand is legal and genuine, which the complainant is bound to deposit. Rest all the assertions made in the complaint have been denied. In view of the facts, detailed above, it has been prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3. 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 the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. Complainant argued that he was surprised to receive bill bearing no.231 dated 12.8.2008 for the period from 10.4.2008 to 12.8.2008 which include Rs.8530/- as some arrears whereas no arrears are due from the complainant to the opposite party (Ex.C4). Complainant argued that he deposited bill along with his application dated 18.8.2008 (Ex.C.1) and the opposite party assured that the excess amount by the respondent will be adjusted in the next coming bills. Complainant further argued that he received another bill no.186 dated 13.10.2008 (Ex.C.2) for the period from 13.8.2009 to 13.10.2008 payable by 30.10.2008 wherein false claim of Rs.10,190/- was made in the bill which include Rs.8650/- as arrears. Whereas no arrears are pending against the complainant (Ex.C.2). Complainant argued that aforesaid bills no.231 dated 12.8.2008 and 186 dated 13.10.2008 are not genuine and illegal and excess amount already paid to be adjusted in the coming bills and demand raised by the opposite party is illegal and not genuine and to be quashed.

6. Opposite party argued that the complainant bearing account no. DE020937 was charged legally and rightly in the month of 6/2008 and bill was based on average consumption of 2089 units was charged and prepared the bill for Rs.9326/- was found recoverable. But only Rs.6660/- was deposited by the consumer. Subsequently, billing during month of 8/2008 and 10/2008 was charged on average basis (Ex.R2) and in the month of December onward bill was sent on actual consumption of the meter. Opposite party argued that as the meter was defective, MCO no.054/73008 dated 17.7.2008 was issued and it was affected on 22.7.2008 and complainant has signed this MCO. Opposite party argued that as the bill for the month of December 15.12.2008 is to be payable on 26.12.2008 for Rs. 11,380/- which includes sundry charges (Ex.R.3) is genuine, legal and to be recoverable from the complainant. As the meter was defective, therefore, bills for the month of 6/2008, 8/2008 and 10/2008 was issued on average basis (Ex.R.2). Therefore, amount raised by the opposite party for Rs.11,380/- as arrears in the bill of December,2008, is legal , genuine and to be recoverable from the complainant. Opposite party further argued that they have based the bill for the month of December,2008 on actual consumption basis and adjustment about the amount which the consumer had already paid has been made and this bill was issued, which is legal and genuine. OP argued that bills in question bearing no.231 dated 12.8.2008 and bill no.186 dated 13.10.2008 are genuine, legal and to be recoverable from the consumer.

7. From the above facts and figures and from the perusal of the record, it is clear that meter was got defective in the month of 6/2008 (Ex.R.5) and MCO no.054/73008 dated 17.7.2008 (Ex.R.1) meter being dead stop/defective effected on 22.7.2008 and consumer has signed the MCO. Counsel for the opposite party also confirmed as per record that the meter was running OK during the month of 4/2008.

8. Fora reaches at the oconclusion that as the meter was got defective in the month 6/2008 and it was changed on 22.7.2008. It means that the meter was recording accurate reading on and after 22.7.2008. Therefore, complainant may be charged for the defective period from 6/2008 till change of the meter as MCO effected on dated 22.7.2008 (1.6.2008 to 22.7.2008) for taking consumption for the corresponding period of previous year and reading which the meter is recording on and after 22.7.2008 may be charged as per actual reading of the meter. Account of the complainant may be overhauled and fresh demand be raised for this period and disputed bills no.231/12.8.2008 (Ex.C.4) and bill no.186 dated 13.10.2008 (Ex. C3) in question be rectified. The amount, if any, deposited with the OP for this period be refunded/adjusted in the bills . Complainant is directed to pursue/complete all the formalities with the OP so that his correct name is incorporated in the record. Hence, complaint allowed. Compliance of the order be made within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order, which is made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

[adv.singh]

Complaint No. 916/23.12.2008.

Date of order: 4.12.2009
Rajinder Pal Gupta son of late Sh. Ramji Dass, aged about 75 years, resident of House No.B-IX-1049, Kishore Building, Shiwala Road, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Patiala.

2. Punjab State Electricity Board, City East U-II, Sub Division E-22, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana, through its XEN.

(Opposite parties)

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

Quorum:

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.
Present:
Sh. Rajiv Kaushal Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. S.C. Mahant Advocate for the opposite party.

O R D E R

RAJESH KUMAR, MEMBER:

1. Complainant being consumer of electric connection no. DE020937, having earlier sanctioned load of 4Kw. later on extended upto 10.560Kws. has been using the same and paying the consumption charges regularly. He was surprised to received a bill no.231 dated 12.8.2008 for the period 10.4.2008 to 12.8.2008, claiming Rs.8530/- including some arrears, whereas no arrears were due from him. The said claim is false, illegal, exorbitant, null and void and as such he contacted the opposite party for correction of the bill vide application dated 18.8.2008. But he was advised to deposit the amount with assurance that excess amount would be adjusted in the next coming bills. As such, he deposited the amount under protest in order to avoid disconnection. Thereafter, instead of adjusting the excess amount, sent another bill no.186 dated 13.10.2008 for the period from 13.8.2008 to 13.10.2008 payable by 30.10.2008 wherein again a false claim of Rs.10,190/- has been made by the respondent including some arrears. In the said bill excess amount already deposited was not detected and opposite party claimed excess arrears of electricity charges to the tune of Rs.10,190/- which he is not liable to pay. Complainant again requested to issue the bill in his correct name as Rajinder Pal Gupta instead of Ravinder Gupta. But the opposite party started dilly dallying the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly on 16.10.2008 flatly refused to make correction in the said bill and threatened to disconnect electric connection of the complainant in case the amount is not deposited. Complainant submitted that disputed bills no.231 dated 12.8.2008 and bill no.186 dated 13.10.2008 are pending before the Forum (complaint no.753 /dd.10.2008). To the utmost surprise, complainant received bill no.187 dated 15.12.2008 for Rs.11,380/- to be payable by 26.12.2008 for the period from 5.9.2008 to 15.12.2008 Prayed that the claim raised by the opposite party is illegal and not genuine and liableto be set aside.

2. Opposite party submitted that complaint not maintainable in the present form as complainant has no standi to file the same and there is no deficiency on the part of OP and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. The meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.054/73008 dated 17.7.2008 being dead stop/defective with new accurate meter on 22.7.2008 to the satisfaction of the consumer who signed the MCO. The consumption bill issued during August 2008 and October 2008 to the consumer, by machine on the average basis as meter installed in the consumer premises was dead stop. The consumption bill issued during December,2008 is on the basis of actual consumption recorded by electric meter installed at consumer premises and the amount of Rs.11,380/- was calculated after affording necessary credit to the consumer in bills issued on average basis as per rules of opposite party. As per record, the actual consumer of connection bearing account no. DE 020937 is Sh. Ravinder Gupta of Kishore Hosiery and connection is not in the name of the complainant. Bill in Oct. 2008 bearing no.186 was issued to the consumer on average basis by computer machine. Bill no.231 during August,2008 for Rs.8530/- was issued on average basis as meter installed at consumer premises was dead stop. Electric consumption bill no.187 dated 15.12.2008 for Rs.11,380/- is correctly raised and making all adjustments is legal & genuine to be recoverable from the consumer.

3. 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. Complainant bearing account no. DE020937 argued that he received bill no.187 dated 15.12.2008 for Rs.11,380/- which is to be payable by 26.12.2008 for the period 5.9.2008 to 15.12.2008 which include sundry charges, is illegal and not genuine. Complainant further argued that two disputed bills no.231 dated 12.8.2008 (Ex.C.3) and bill no.186 dated 13.10.2008 (Ex.C.1) complaint regarding which is also pending before the Fora. Complainant argued that demand raised in the bill dated 15.12.2008 is illegal and not genuine as earlier complaint no.753 dated 22.10.2008 is still pending with the Fora and the present bill no.187 dated 15.12.2008 pertaining to the period 5.9.2008 to 15.12.2008 for Rs.11,380/- which carry sundry charges is illegal and not genuine. Therefore, complainant argued that bill no.187 dated 15.12.2008 for Rs. 11,380/- be quashed.

6. Opposite party argued that the electric meter installed at the premises of the consumer was changed vide MCO no.054/73008/17.7.2008 (Ex.R.1) being dead stop with accurate electronic meter on 22.7.2008 to the satisfaction of the consumer who has signed the MCO. The opposite party argued that consumption bill issued for 6/2208, 8/2208, 10/2008 (Ex.R.2) on the average basis and bill issued during December 2008 is on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the electronic meter installed at the premises of the consumer and the amount of Rs.11,380/- was charged to the complainant after giving necessary credit to the consumer in the bills issued on average basis. Opposite party argued that the meter was got defective in the month of 6/2008 (Ex.R.5). Opposite party argued that as the meter was got defective in the month of 6/2008, therefore, average has been charged as per norms of the Punjab State Electricity Board. Therefore, opposite party argued that the amount charged in the bill no.187 dated 15.12.2008 is legal, genuine and to be recoverable from the consumer.

7. From the above facts and figures, Fora reaches at the conclusion that the meter was defective for the month of 6/2008 and MCO was issued on 17.7.2008 which was affected on 22.7.2008 and duly signed by the complainant. Both the ld. counsel for the parties told the Fora that the meter was OK in the month of 4/2008 and as per record meter was got defective in 6/2008 (Ex. R5). As the meter was changed on 22.7.2008, it means that on or after 22.7.2008 meter was recording accurate reading. As the meter was defective during month of 6/2008 upto 22.7.08 till the meter was changed. Therefore, account of the complainant may be overhauled for defective period (1.6.2008 to 22.7.2008) by taking consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year. Account of the complainant may be overhauled by taking consumption for the period June upto changing of the meter i.e. 22.7.2008 of the corresponding period of the previous year and also correct reading of the meter after 22.7.08 be taken and account of the consumer be overhauled and bill in question no.187/15.12.2008 be rectified and fresh demand be raised. Amount deposited, if any, with the opposite party by the consumer be refunded/adjusted in the bills. Complainant must pursue & adopt proper procedure with the opposite party and complete all formalities so that his correct name is incorporated in the record. Hence, complaint allowed. Compliance of the order be made within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

[adv.singh]

Complaint No. 717/6.10.2008
Date of order 3.12.2009.
Harminder Singh son of late Sh. Surjit Singh, resident of House No.1680, Phase-1, Urban Estate, Dugri,Ludhiana. (Complainant)

Vs.
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.

2. Punjab State Electricity Board, Special Division Model Town, Ludhiana through its Assistant Executive Engineer Commercial.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.



Present:

None for the complainant.

Sh. Yashbir Chaudhary Advocate for opposite parties.



O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. House no. 1680, Phase-1, Urban Estate, Dugri Road, Ludhiana having electric connection of account no. SN 340040P was purchased by the complainant from its owner Sh. Krishan Singh. Since the purchase, using electric supply and paying the bills regularly. His grouse in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that his meter was checked by officials of the opposite party after every two months for recording reading. But suddenly vide memo date 22.9.2008 opposite party raised demand of Rs.61,611/- on allegations of stopping the meter by use of magnet to commit theft of energy. His meter was never checked by officials of the opposite party and the allegations are false. Therefore, demand claimed to be arbitrary, wrong and illegal.

2. Opposite party in defence pleaded that this connection was checked by officials of the opposite party on 9.8.2008 in presence of the consumer. It was found that he had placed a magnet on the figures of the meter and thereby meter had stopped functioning. At the time of checking, complainant removed the magnet in the presence of the checking staff. Checking report was prepared, which consumer refused to sign. Therefore, on the basis thereof that the consumer was found committing theft of energy, demand vide memo dated 22.9.2008 was rightly raised.

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. At the time of arguments none appeared on behalf of the complainant. Ld. counsel for the opposite party stood heard. We have also gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. Though complainant in support of his assertions of non checking of his connection has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1. But opposite parties have placed on record affidavit Ex. RW2/A of Sh. Hari Narain, AJE. Vide this narration of Sh. Hari Narain AJE, connection of the consumer was checked on 9.8.2009 in the presence of the consumer. It was found that he was stealing energy by placing a magnet on the figures of the meter and had stopped functioning of the meter by placing the magnet. In presence of checking staff, complainant removed the magnet. Checking report Ex.R.1 was prepared, but consumer refused to sign the same. Therefore, opposite party issued provisional assessment order Ex. R2 and then final assessment order Ex.R.3.

6. It is apparent in these circumstances that the complainant was caught red handed while stealing energy by putting a magnet on the meter. Theft charge has been fully proved against him. So, having no merit in the complaint, same is dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

[adv.singh]

Complaint No.194/6.3.2009
Date of order: 3.12.2009

Anita Rani wife of Sh. Parvwwn Kumar, resident of 3605, Grain Market, Behind Arora palace, Ludhiana.

(Complainant
Vs.
1 Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Patiala.
2. XEN, Punjab State Electricity Board Sub Divisional, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.

(Opposite parties)

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum:
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.
Present:
Sh. Shekhar Gupta for the complainant.

Sh. Ajit Singh Walia Advocate for opposite parties.

O R D E R

RAJESH KUMAR, MEMBER:

1. The complainant is the owner of the plot situated in South City land of Barewal Awana, Ludhiana, bearing domestic account no.AY38/496-DS, installed in the premises of the complainant with the sanctioned load of 5 Kw. and applied for a extension of load and deposited Rs.5050/-on 29.7.2007 vide receipt no.040 for extension of load from 5kw. to 8.6.Kw. On 15.12.2008, some officials of the opposite party came to the premises of the complainant and broke the seal of the meter. Thereafter, gave a notice to the complainant that she was using excess load than the sanctioned load and charged the complainant 10.213kw against the sanctioned load of 5 Kw. and a provisional order of assessment was issued to deposit Rs.1,12,821/- as a penalty and sanctioned load was mentioned in this order as 5Kw. The complainant received bill of electricity consumption dated 15.2.2009 for Rs.1,14,550/- in which 1,05,001/- was shown as a sundry charges. When the complainant enquired from the opposite party regarding sundry charges, the opposite party explained that penalty of Rs.1,12,821/- has been reduced to Rs.1,05,001/- and if she do not deposit, then a surcharge of Rs.10,321/- will be charged and her connection will be disconnected. In the house of the complainant repair work was going on in the premises of the complainant and load of connection was already extended from 5Kw. to 8.66kw. within 15 days from 29.7.2008 after the date of deposit of fee of the extended load. The bill dated 15.2.09 also shows that load of 8.66Kw. The opposite party has charged the penalty as per tariff of temporary connection, which is absolutely illegal. On 24.2.09, the complainant has moved an application to the opposite party for correction of the bill. It is prayed that demand of Rs.1,05,001/- as sundry charges plus surcharge of Rs.10,321/- may be set aside.

2. Opposite party explained that the complaint is false and frivolous and liable to be dismissed as without any merit and the complainant concealed material facts from the Forum. In fact, the electric connection bearing account no. AY38/496 of DS category was checked on 15.12.2008 by the Senior Executive Engineer Enforcement No.1, PSEB, Ludhiana having sanctioned load of 5kw. in the presence of Sh. Ajay Kumar who was present at site and also signed the checking report. The checking report was prepared vide page no.18, register no.310 and found that the complainant was using electricity for construction purpose and not being used for residential purpose. Wooden work was being done by the carpenter and floor grinding machine was also running and electricity fitting was incomplete in the premises at the time of checking. Sanctioned load was 5Kw. which was later on enhanced to 8.66Kw. So, difference of tariff from DS to temporary tariff for construction purpose recoverable and chargeable for the period 1/2008 to 11/2008 of DS category to temporary tariff and worked out to be 1,05,001/. Earlier sum of Rs.7820/- load surcharge penalty was charged and the total amount Rs.1,12,821/- was raised through provisional order of assessment and also issued final order of assessment under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and later on demand of Rs.7820/- was reduced after verifying the records and now only Rs.1,05,001/- is recoverable from the complainant which is shown as sundry charges in the bill dated 15.2.2009.

3. 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 the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. Complainant argued that he received a bill dated 15.2.2008 for Rs.1,14,550/- in which it was shown Rs.1,05,001/- as sundry charges (Ex.C3) having a sanctioned load of 8.66Kw. Complainant argued that provisional order of assessment for Rs.1,12,821/- was issued vide 5542 dated 22.1.2009(Ex.C1) and lateron this demand was reduced to 1,05,001/- and a sum of Rs. 7820/- which was charged as a surcharge in the total demand of Rs.1,12,821/- was reduced. The complainant argued that some repair of building was going on in his premises and also got his load extended from 5kw. to 8.6kw. as he deposited the fee for extension in load on 29.7.08. Complainant also argued that as per Electricity Supply Regulations of PSEB 124.1 (Ex.C5)separate bill should have been issued giving complete detail of the charges and surcharge should not be clubbed with the current bill of the complainant. Complainant also argued that all load which was sanctioned can not be used at one time. Complainant also argued that checking of load of DS consumer was suspended by PSEB at the time of checking. (Ex.C8) Therefore, the amount charged in the bill dated 15.2.2009 (Ex.C3) for Rs.1,05,001/- is illegal and not genuine. Therefore, the amount of Rs.1,05,001/- is illegal, arbitrary and in genuine which has been put to harass the complainant, be quashed.

6. The opposite party argued that the electric connection of the complainant bearing account no. AY38/496 of DS category was checked on 15.12.2008 by Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement No.1, PSEB Ludhiana having a sanctioned load of 5Kw. in the presence of Sh. Ajay Kumar, who was present at the time of checking and also signed the checking report. The report was prepared, page no.18, register no.310 (Ex.R.1) and the complainant was using electricity for construction purpose and not using the same for residential purpose and wooden work was being done by the carpenter and floor grinding machine was also running and electricity fitting was incomplete. The load which was previously sanctioned 5Kw. lateron enhanced to 8.66Kw. Therefore, difference of tariff from domestic to temporary tariff for construction purpose was recoverable from the complainant for the period 1/08 to 11/08. Therefore, account of the complainant was overhauled and the original total demand of Rs.1,12,821/- was raised through provisional order of assessment and final order of assessment but later on demand of Rs.7820/- was waived off after verifying there record and only a sum of Rs.1,05,001/- was chargeable to the consumer, which was added in the bill dated 15.2.2009 (Ex.C.3) is legal and genuine. Opposite party also argued that PSEB authorities have the right to check the connection where somebody is misusing the electricity of the Board. The checking official who has checked the connection vide page no.18/310 dated 15.12.08 (Ex.R1) Sh. Mandeep Singh Sr. Executive Engineer, Enforcement No.1,PSEB, Ludhiana submitted an affidavit that on 15.12.2008, he personally checked the connection along with Sh. Daljit Singh XEN Enforcement and at the time of checking Sh. Ajay Kumar was present who signed the report. Therefore, opposite party argued that amount so charged Rs.1,05,001/- and provisional order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo no.5542 dated 22.1.2009 in which seven days time was given to deposit the amount or file objections if any but the complainant did not act upon it and final order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo no.5954-A dated 29.3.2009 for Rs.1,05,001/- which was added in the bill dated 15.2.2009 as sundry charges Ex.C.3 is chargeable and recoverable from the consumer.

7. Fora reaches at the conclusion that electric connection of the complainant was checked on 15.12.2008 vide page no. 18/310 (Ex.R1) by Sh. Mandeep Singh Sr. Executive Engineer, Enforcement No.1,PSEB, Ludhiana along with Daljit Singh Sr. Executive Engineer, Enforcement No.1,PSEB, Ludhiana and found that at the time of checking the complainant was using electricity for construction purpose instead of domestic use. Sh.Ajay Kumar, was also present at site who signed the checking report. Sh.Mandeep Singh Sr. Executive Engineer, Enforcement No.1,PSEB, Ludhiana has submitted an affidavit RW2/A that he has checked the connection along with Singh Sr. Executive Engineer, Enforcement No.I1,PSEB, Ludhiana (Ex.R.1) and found that the complainant was using 10.213Kw. load against the sanctioned load of 5Kw. which was lateron enhanced to 8.66kw. by the complainant, means that the sanctioned load of the complainant was 8.66Kw. As the complainant was using load 10.213kw. against the sanctioned load of 8.66kw. and also using the connection for construction purpose as per checking report Ex.R.1. Therefore, provisional order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for Rs. 1,12,521/- was issued vide memo no. 5542 dated 22.1.2009 (Ex.R.4) and later on after verifying the record Rs.7820/-were reduced to the total amount of Rs.1,12,521/- and final order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 for Rs.1,05,001/- vide memo no.5954-A dated 29.3.2009 (Ex.R.3) and lateron it was added in the bill dated 15.2.2009 as a sundry charges (Ex.C.3) is legal, genuine and to be recoverable from the complainant. Hence, complaint finds no merits and same is dismissed. We leave the 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.

[adv.singh]

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.370 of 2009.

DATE OF INSTT. 22.7.2009.

DATE OF ORDER.15.1.2010.
Arundesh (Hav.) son of Mela Ram aged 40 years, resident of village Chounta, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
Complainant.
VERSUS

1. The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala

2. S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Dinanagar.

Opposite parties.

BEFORE

R.K.KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

SUKHWINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

PRESENT.

Sh. Rajesh Chohan, counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Opinder Rana, counsel for the opposite parties.
ORDER

R.K.KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

This is a complaint filed by Hav. Arundesh, complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date) (hereinafter referred as the Act) against the Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala and others to the effect that it be restrained to recover Rs.752/- claimed as energy charges vide bill dated 23.5.2009, be directed to install the meter on the wall from where was it removed, not to claim the energy charges till the meter is installed and pay Rs.20,000/- as damages for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience he suffered and litigation expenses.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the officials of the Board removed the meter installed in his house in his absence on 11.11.2008. The Board is sending the bills claiming the energy charges regularly knowing it well that he is not using any energy. He made complaints to different authorities including Secretary of the Board in this regard but no action was taken on it. Some dispute is going on between him and Avtar Singh over the rasta. The latter dragged the matter in the Civil Courts, filed a suit Avtar Singh Vs. Ramesh Kumar and is pending in the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurdaspur. The officials of the Board removed the meter on the instance of said Avtar Singh to harass and harm him. A letter was written to him on 21.11.2008 intimating that meter has been installed at his house. But it is false and wrong. No meter has been installed in his house as yet. A bill raising a demand of Rs.752/- as energy charges was served upon him on 23.5.2009. It is bogus and false because he is not residing in the house and consuming any energy. The opposite party were asked many times not to recover the amount in question and to install the meter at his house but without any result.

3. Electricity Board through S.D.O. Sub Division Dinanagar, appeared, filed its reply, raising the preliminary objections that of cause of action, locus standi and further that the complainant has not come in the Forum with clean hands, has suppressed the true and real facts and as such is not entitled for any relief. On merits, however, it was stated that on 22.9.2008 one Dr.Avtar Mehra made a complaint to the S.D.O. concerned that the complainant got the meter installed on the back side of his house by misleading the employees. The Junior Engineer of the area inspected the spot and ordered that the meter be removed. Complainant did not allow the officials to remove it and install at the proper place and abused them. A notice was issued to the complainant calling upon him to explain as to why he deterred the officials to perform their duties and abused them? But no reply was given by him. Consequently, the supply to his house was disconnected and meter was removed on 19.12.2008. As per the rules of the Board, the meter has to be installed on the front wall of the house of every consumer. No energy charges were claimed from the complainant right from the day the meter was removed from his house. Rs.752/- so taken from him were refunded vide letter dated 21.8.2009. Complainant has filed this complaint leveling false and frivolous allegations only to harass and harm it. Other averments made in the complaint were denied.

4. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of the bill Ex.C2.

5. Electricity Board filed affidavits of Sucha Singh, S.D.O. Ex.R1, Bodh Raj J.E. Ex.R2, copies of application, notice and P.D.C.O. Ex.R3 to Ex.R5 in evidence.

6. Written arguments were not filed by the opposite parties despite having availed two opportunities.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the written arguments submitted by the complainant and also material on record carefully.

8. Rs.757/- so recovered as energy charges from the complainant were refunded to him. These were credited in his account vide entry no.28/91 dated 3/1/2009. It is evident from the letter dated 21.8.2009, a copy of which is available on the file. Sucha Singh S.D.O. also affirmed it in his sworn affidavit Ex.R1 filed by way of evidence. Complainant never denied it in his evidence Ex.C1. It implies that the amount in question was refunded to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant also agitated nothing in this regard. Thus, this grouse of the complainant stands satisfied & needs no findings.

9. As far the other plea of the complainant that the meter be installed at the same place from where was it removed is not legal, valid & genuine. The meter was installed on the wall of someone else.

10. It is legally not permissible. The rules and law of the Board provide that the meter be installed on the front side/wall of the house of the consumer. Probably, it is done with the view that Meter Reader may take the reading without disturbing the owner/consumer and at any time. If it is so, then the Board cannot be asked to change the rule and install the meter on the backside of the house of the complainant or on the wall of someone else. It would be illegal and unjustified.

11. Thus, the Board is hereby directed to install the meter of the complainant in the manner it has installed the meter of the other consumers. With these observations this complaint stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

12. This complaint could not be disposed of within the prescribed period because of huge pendency of the cases.

13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.

[adv.singh]

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 386 of 2009.

DATE OF INSTT. 29.7.2009.

DATE OF ORDER.12.1.2010.
Baljinder Singh son of Sh.Amar Singh, resident of village Manepur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

Complainant.
VERSUS

1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall Patiala.

2. S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub-Division, Jaura Chhattran.

Opposite parties.

BEFORE
R.K.KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

SUKHWINDER SINGH, MEMBER.


PRESENT.

Sh. Gurbachan Singh, counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Suvir Mahajan, counsel for the opposite parties.
ORDER

R.K.KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

This is a complaint filed by Baljinder Singh, complainant against the Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala and others U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date) “hereinafter referred as the Act” to the effect that it be restrained to recover Rs.18269/- claimed as sundry charges vide bill dated 17/7/2009, pay Rs.5,000/- as damages for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience he suffered, besides the litigation expenses.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he and Mohinder Singh his brother were living jointly in a house at village Manepur. An electric connection bearing No.F-731710L was installed in it and the sanctioned electric load was 0.89 K.W. A few days back they partitioned their shares in the house and both the brothers started living separately. He got constructed his own house. The above said connection is being availed by Mohinder Singh, his brother. A bill raising a demand of Rs.18990/- including Rs.18269/- as sundry charges was served upon him by the Board on 17/7/2009. Nothing is mentioned in it as to on what count the sundry charges have been claimed? He never indulged in committing theft of energy. No official of the Board ever checked his electric connection. He never refused to sign on any checking report. No copy of it was given to him. The impugned demand of the Board is illegal, null and void and unjustified. It is intended to recover the amount in question by disconnecting his connection.

3. Electricity Board through S.D.O. Sub Division Jaura Chhattran, appeared, filed its reply, negating the allegations of the complaint. It was stated that connection no.F-731710L was installed in the house of the complainant on 17/4/2008. On the same day, Amardeep Singh Nagra S.D.O. alongwith Pritam Singh J.E. and others checked the connection of the complainant in his presence and found him taking the supply directly from the main PVC wire by bye-passing the meter and thieving the energy. Checking report was prepared at the spot but the complainant refused to sign on it. A copy of the report was given to him. Before carrying out the checking efforts were made to join some inhabitants of the locality in the checking party but none agreed. Notice raising a demand of Rs.18269/- was served upon the complainant vide notice no.770 dated 21/4/2008. But the complainant did not pay it. Consequently, it was claimed in the current bill as sundry charges. He is liable to pay it.

4. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of bill Ex.C2.

5. Electricity Board filed affidavits of Amardeep Singh Nagra S.D.O. Ex.R1, Pritam Singh J.E. Ex.R2, copies of checking report and notice Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 in evidence.

6. Written arguments were not filed by the opposite parties despite the fact that three successive opportunities were given to it within a period stretching over a month.

7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, have gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant and also material on record carefully.

8. On going through the material on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the impugned demand raised by the opposite parties vide memo no.770 dated 21/4/2008 is illegal, null & void and unjustified. Why we have arrived at this conclusion is that the case of the opposite party suffer from so many infirmities and illegalities pinned below?

9. Checking report Ex.R3 was allegedly prepared at the spot. It does not bear the signatures of the complainant or any of his representative/relations. It has not been authenticated by any respectable person of the locality. There is nothing in evidence that a copy of the report was given to the complainant. Under these circumstances, the checking report in its present form is against the rules and regulations of the Board and cannot be relied upon. Reference in this regard can be made to ‘Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot Vs. Sarwan Singh 2008(1)CLT 237 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh’ This fact renders the checking doubtful & suspicious.

10. Further, the connection of the complainant was allegedly checked on 17/4/2008 whereas the notice was served upon him on 21/4/2008, say after four days. This can be borne out from the copies of the checking report and notice Ex.R3 and Ex.R4. As per the ESR Manual, the notice has to be served upon the consumer within 48 hours of the checking, whereas it was served upon the complainant after four days. No explanation much less valid and genuine has been extended by the Board in this regard. This fact further renders the checking doubtful and suspicious. If any authority is needed on it then the same is H.S.E.B. Vs. Phullu, CLT 2002 (1) 35. Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh.

11. Further-more notice bearing no.770 dated 21.4.2008 was served upon the complainant imposing a penalty of Rs.18269/- for thieving the energy. This penalty was assessed/determined by the Assessing Authority unilaterally without giving any opportunity/hearing to the complainant. The data so recorded in the checking report dated 17.4.2008 have been referred in the notice and on that basis, a conclusion has been drawn that the complainant was thieving the energy U/S 135 of the Act. No opportunity was given to the complainant with regard to the assessment of the loss of electricity so determined and mentioned in the notice. In fact, the complainant was condemned unheard. He was never given any opportunity to clarify/explain his position before this penalty was determined by the authority concerned. It is illegal & unwarranted. No law of the jungle provides it. Rule prudence requires that opportunity should be given to the consumer/offender to explain/clarify his position before assessing the penalty and raising the demand from him. Since this requirement of law was not complied with in this case, so this fact also vitiates the notice impugned. We stand supported with our views by the observations made by the Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula’ in case ‘D.H.B.V.N. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Ram Nath 2009(2) CLT 484 .

12. Moreso, nothing prevented the officials of the opposite parties to take into possession the incriminating articles like the wire etc. vide which the complainant was allegedly taking the supply from the main PVC wire. No case was got registered against the complainant with the police. If he was found committing theft of energy then report should have been made against him to the police and a case registered.

13. By now, it has become the settled proposition of law that the opposite party is required to bring on record cogent and convincing evidence to prove the commission of theft by a consumer. No such evidence has been placed on the file by the opposite party. In “Charan Singh vs. P.S.E.B.reported as 2006(I) CLT 659” it has been held by our Hon’ble State Commission that in order to prove the commission of power theft the evidence should be brought on the same pattern by the opposite party as it is produced by the prosecution in a Criminal case to prove an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Once again, we would like to record that no such evidence is on the file.

14. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are hereby restrained to recover the sundry charges claimed vide bill impugned. If the complainant had paid any amount against this bill then the same be refunded to him. However, the complainant is directed to pay the actual, consumption charges. Parties are left to bear own costs.

15. This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because of huge pendency of the cases.

16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.

[adv.singh]

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.455 of 2009.

DATE OF INSTT. 3.9.2009.

DATE OF ORDER. 12.1.2010.

Jaswant Singh son of Dalip Singh, resident of Village Roranwali, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Complainant.

VERSUS

1. The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, the Mall, Patiala

2. S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Kahnuwan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

Opposite parties.

BEFORE
R.K.KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

SUKHWINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

PRESENT.

Sh. J.S.Randhawa, counsel for complainant.

Sh. Opinder Rana, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

R.K.KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

This is a complaint filed by Jaswant Singh, complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date) (hereinafter referred as the Act) against the Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala and others to the effect that it be restrained to recover Rs.23,213/- claimed vide notice no.563 dated 11.8.2009, pay Rs.10,000/- as damages for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience he suffered besides Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he has taken two tubewell connections one bearing no.B-1707 and the other AB 196 in his land at village Roranwali and is the consumer of the Board. He has regularly been paying the energy charges. There is party friction in the village. The officials of the Board on the instance of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchyat who is from the ruling party, served a notice claiming Rs.23,213/- as penalty for allegedly committing theft of energy, on 11.8.2009. But it is wrong and incorrect. He never indulged in committing theft of energy. No official of the Board ever checked his electric connection. He never refused to sign on any checking report. No copy of the report was ever given to him. The impugned demand of the Board is illegal, null and void and unjustified. It is now intended to recover the amount in question by disconnecting his electric connection.

3. Electricity Board through S.D.O. Sub Division, Kahnuwan, appeared, filed its reply, raising the preliminary objections that of cause of action, locus standi and further that the complainant has not come in the Forum with clean hands, has suppressed the true and real facts and as such is not entitled for any relief. On merits, however, it was admitted that complainant is the consumer of the Board having taken the tubewell connections. It was pleaded that on 10.8.2009 Bhajan Singh S.D.O. alongwith Joginder Singh J.E. and other officials checked the connection of the complainant in his presence and found him using 3 BHP motor to tun the tubewell by taking the supply directly from the main L.T.line by bye passing the meter and thieving the energy. Checking report was prepared at the spot but the complainant refused to sign on it. A copy of the report was given to him. Notice claiming the amount in question was served upon the complainant, rightly and legally. He is liable to pay it. Other averments made in the complaint were denied.

4. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and notice Ex.C2.

5. Opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavits of Bhajan Singh S.D.O., Joginder Singh J.E., copies of checking report & notice Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.

6. Written arguments were not filed by the parties despite having availed several opportunities.

7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record carefully.

8. A curious perusal of the material on record reveals that on 10.8.2009, Bhajan Singh S.D.O. alongwith Joginder Singh J.E. and other officials checked the connection of the complainant in his presence and found him using 3 BHP motor to tun the tubewell by taking the supply directly from the main L.T.line by bye passing the meter and thieving the energy. Checking report was prepared at the spot but the complainant refused to sign on it. A copy of the report was given to him. To prove it, the Board has placed on the record affidavits of Bhajan Singh S.D.O., Joginder Singh J.E., copies of checking report & notice Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. But it is of no consequence to prove its claim.

9. Checking report dated 10.8.2008 Ex.R3 was allegedly prepared at the spot. It does not bear the signatures of the complainant or any of his representative/relations. It has not been authenticated by any respectable person of the locality. Nothing is on record to prove that a copy of the report was given to the complainant. In these circumstances, the checking report in its present form is against the rules and law of the Board and cannot be relied upon. Reference in this regard can be made to ‘Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot Vs. Sarwan Singh 2008(1)CLT 237 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh’

10. Further more, notice bearing no.563 dated 11.8.2009 was served upon the complainant imposing a penalty of Rs.23,213/- for thieving the energy. This penalty was assessed/determined by the Assessing Authority unilaterally without giving any opportunity/hearing to the complainant. The data so recorded in the checking report dated 10.8.2009 have been referred in the notice and on that basis, a conclusion has been drawn that the complainant was thieving the energy U/S 135 of the Act. No opportunity was given to the complainant with regard to the assessment of the loss of electricity so determined and mentioned in the notice. In fact, the complainant was condemned unheard. He was never given any opportunity to clarify/explain his position before the penalty was determined by the authority concerned. It is illegal & unwarranted. No law of the jungle provides it. Rule prudence requires that opportunity should be given to the offender/consumer to explain/clarify his position before assessing the penalty and effecting the recovery from him. Since this mandatory requirement of law was not complied with in this case, so this fact vitiates the notice impugned. If any authority is needed on it then the same is ‘D.H.B.V.N. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Ram Nath 2009(2) CLT 484 Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula’.

11. Further, nothing prevented the officials to take into possession, wires etc. vide which he was taking the supply from the main PVC wire and also the 3 BHP motor, he was using to run the tubewell. No case was got registered against the complainant with the police for committing theft of energy. If he was found committing theft of energy then report should have been made against him to the police and a case registered.

12. By now, it has become the settled proposition of law that opposite party is required to bring on record cogent and convincing evidence to prove the commission of theft by a consumer. No such evidence has been placed on the file by the opposite party. In “Charan Singh vs. P.S.E.B.reported as 2006(I) CLT 659” it has been held by our Hon’ble State Commission that in order to prove the commission of power theft the evidence should be brought on the same pattern by the opposite party as it is produced by the prosecution in a Criminal case to prove an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Once again, we would like to record that no such evidence is on the file.

13. The State of Punjab has remitted the energy charges of the tubewell connections. Complainant is already availing two connections. It is not in dispute. When the energy charges of the tubewell connections have been remitted & the consumer is having two connections the chances of his thieving the energy in the circumstances appear very bleak. Had the complainant been not having any connection and the energy charges being claimed for the tube-wells then the possibility of his thieving the energy to use the motor to run the tubewell could not be ruled out. This is a very strong circumstance which cannot be ignored. It falsify the claim of the opposite party.

14. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is hereby allowed and the opposite parties are restrained to recover Rs.23,213/- claimed vide notice no.563 dated 11.8.2009. If the complainant had paid any amount against the impugned notice/bill then the same be refunded to him. Parties are left to bear own costs.

15. This complaint could not be disposed of within the prescribed period because of huge pendency of the cases.

16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.