Punjab State Electricity Board

[adv.sumit]

Jaswant Singh age 40 years s/o Gulzar Singh r/o Vill. Gandhowal, Distt. Hoshiarpur.


......... Complainant

versus


1.

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

The Punjab State Electricity Board, through the Asstt. Executive Engineer, Paddi Sura Singh, Tehsil Garhshankar, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

......... Opposite Parties



1.

The complainant namely Jaswant Singh has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Stated briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. AB-39/389. The complainant is regularly paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties, thus he is a consumer. It is the case of the complainant that he never used the electricity unauthorizedly.
2.

It is the allegation of the complainant that he was surprised to receive the memo No. 387, dated 19.3.2009 to pay the amount of Rs. 38,105/-, within 7 days from the receipt of the notice, failing which the connection shall be disconnected. It is averred that a false allegation had been made in the notice that the complainant was found to have put the “Kundi” and using the electricity unauthorizedly by stopping the meter by putting the wire. That the checking of the meter was never made in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained on the checking memo. That the meter of the complainant was never checked in his presence or any member of his family. The complainant never committed the theft of electricity. The signatures of the complainant or his family members were not obtained on any report. The memo No. 387 dated 19.3.2009 is liable to be quashed, hence this complaint.

3.

The opposite parties filed the joint reply. The 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. It is replied that on 19.3.2009, AEE of Saila Khurd, Sub Division, alongwith Krishan Chander, AEE, Mohinder Pal, AJE and Mohinder Singh, JE checked the connection of the complainant. It was found that the complainant had fixed the direct wires (Kundis) in PVC wire over roof of supply line coming to the meter.


It is further replied that by inserting the said wires in the grip, the complainant was committing the theft of energy by bye-passing the meter. The meter was found dead stop. However, the supply of power was running. A detailed site checking report was prepared in the presence of the representative of the complainant namely Gurpreet Singh and thereafter, Show Cause Notice vide Memo No. 387 dated 19.3.2009 was served upon the complainant with the direction to deposit the amount of Rs. 38,105/-. The demand of Rs. 38,105/- is stated to be legal.
4.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. CW1/A, receipt – Ex. C-1, receipt dated 26.3.2007 – Ex. C-2, bill dated 11.3.2007 – Ex. C-3, bill dated 10.11.2008 – Ex. C-4, receipt dated 28.1.2008 – Ex. C-5, bill Ex. C-6, bill dated 14.11.2008 – Ex. C-7, receipt Ex. C-8, notice – Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence.
5.

In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Tarlochan Singh – Ex. R-1, affidavit of Krishan Chander – Ex. R-2, site checking report – Ex. R-3, notice dated 19.3.2009 – Ex. R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.
6.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
7.

Ex. R-1 is the affidavit of Tarlochan Singh Sandhu, AEE, PSEB Sub Division, Paddi Sura Singh in support of the averments contained in the reply. Ex. R-4 is the notice dated 19.3.2009. Ex. R-3 is the site checking report, which is signed by Gurpreet Singh, representative of the complainant. Ex. R-2 is the affidavit of Krishan Chander, AAE, PSEB, Task Force, Circle Office, Hoshiarpur, in support of the contents of the site checking report – Ex. R-3, wherein he has stated that on 19.3.2009 he alongwith Mohinderpal, AJE, Mohider Singh, JE and AE of Saila Khurd, Sub-Division, PSEB, checked the electric connection of the complainant and found that the complainant had fixed the direct wires (kundis) in PVC wire over roof of the supply line coming to the meter by inserting the said wires in the grip and switched off the meter. In this way, the complainant was stealing the power of the PSEB by bye-passing the meter.


The meter was made dead stop. However, the supply was running at the spot. The case of theft was declared. The detailed checking site report was prepared in the presence of Gurpeet Singh, representative of the complainant, who remained present during the entire site checking of the connection. The self-serving affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-1 is not sufficient to rebut the site checking report – Ex. R-3, as such it is held that the connection of the complainant was checked by the officers of the PSEB and he was found committing theft of electricity.
8.

As a result of the above, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, with the result he 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.sumit]

Tarsem Lal s/o Sunder Ram r/o Vill. Bassi Kikran, P.S. Sadar, the. & Distt. Hoshiarpur.

.... Complainant

versus


1. PSEB, through its Chairman, Patiala.


2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Civil Lines, Sub Division, PSEB, Hoshiarpur.

.......... Opposite Parties


1.

The complainant namely Tarsem Lal has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant applied for domestic electric connection vide application No. 38975 dated 2.5.2008 to OP No. 2 – Asstt. Executive Engineer. The complainant completed all the formalities and also deposited the amount of Rs. 1340/- vide receipt No.292 dated 2.5.2008. It is the allegation of the complainant that the OP No. 2 failed to release/provide the electricity connection to the complainant, hence this complaint.
2.

The opposite parties filed the joint reply. The preliminary objections vis-a-vis maintainability, concealment of facts and jurisdiction were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the opposite parties were informed by Mrs. Chhindo w/o Sh. Dev Ram about the dispute pending between the parties in a Civil Court through letter dated 20.11.2008. The complainant was informed vide Memo No. 125 dated 19.1.2009 about the non-release of electricity connection due to pending dispute in the Civil Court. The connection can only be released as per rules and regulations of the Electricity Board.
3.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, receipt – Mark C-2 (No. 1340), copy of order dated 2.11.2006 in case Surinder Kaur vs. Tarsem Lal – Mark C-3 and closed the evidence.
4.

In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of R.K. Saini – Ex. OP-1, Memo No. 125 dated 19.1.2009 – Mark OP-2, receipt No. 5562 dated 5.5.2008 – Mark OP-3, letter dated 20.11.2008 – Mark OP-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.
5.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
6.

The case of the complainant is that he applied for domestic electricity connection to OP No. 2 and also deposited the amount of Rs. 1340/- vide receipt No. 292 dated 2.5.2008, but the OP No. 2 failed to release/provide the electricity connection. The opposite parties-Electricity Board has raised the plea that they were informed by one Chhindo about the dispute pending between the parties in a Civil Court through letter dated 20.11.2008, as such the complainant was informed vide Memo No. 125 dated 19.1.2009 about the non-release of the electricity connection due to pending dispute in the Civil Court.
7.

The opposite parties have produced on record – Mark-OP2, Memo No. 125 dated 19.1.2009, wherein it has been recorded that due to dispute, the connection cannot be released. Mark OP-3 is an order to release the electricity connection in favour of the complainant, but the connection has not been released.
8.

Now, it is clear that the opposite parties are ready to release the connection but because of some dispute, the connection has not been released.
9.

Under the given situation, the opposite parties are directed to release the electricity connection in favour of the complainant after obtaining affidavit from him to the effect that in case, there is some dispute regarding the release of the connection, the Electricity Board-opposite parties will have a right to disconnect the same. However, no order as to costs. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.

[adv.sumit]

Takhat Singh aged 68 years s/o Late Prem Singh R/o Village Kaluwal Kotala, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.


....... Complainant

versus


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

2. Executive Engineer, PSEB, Sub-Division Miani, Tehsil Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.





1. The complainant namely Takhat Singh has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the holder of electricity account No. AD-3301421, having connected load of 1.61 KW. The complainant is regularly paying the electricity bills, thus he is a consumer.


2. It is the allegation of the complainant that he received letter No. 944 dated 15.4.2009 qua which he was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 2940/-. It is further the allegation of the complainant that his account was never audited and overhauled in his presence, as such the demand of Rs. 2940/- is illegal. The opposite parties were requested to withdraw the said illegal demand of rs. 2940/-, but of no avail, hence this complaint.


3. The opposite parties filed the joint reply. The preliminary objections vis-a-vis maintainability and cause of action were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that on the report of the Meter Reader, the meter was changed on 2.11.2008 vide MCO No. 14/64126 dated 28.8.2008. The defective meter was replaced in the presence of the representative of the complainant, who also signed the MCO. It is further replied that the removed electro mechanical meter was sent to the M.E. Laboratory vide Challan No. 278 dated 18.11.2008. The meter was found burnt. That the account of the consumer was overhauled by the audit party for the period 1/08 to 9/08. The consumer was found liable to pay difference of Rs. 2940/-, as such notice No. 944 dated 15.4.2009 was served upon the complainant. The demand of Rs. 2940/- is stated to be legal. That the period 1/07 to 9/07 was taken as base period for overhauling the less consumption period of 1/08 to 9/08, per rules.


4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, letter dated 15.4.2009 – Ex. C-2, receipt – Mark C-3, bills dated 27.3.2007 – Mark C-4, dated 25.1.2009 – Mark C-5, application by complainant – Mark C-6 and closed the evidence.


5. In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Ajit Pal Singh Multani – Ex. OP-1, Memo No. 1758 – Ex. OP-2, calculation sheet – Ex. OP-3, sales regulation page 160 – Mark OP-4, challan dated 18.11.2008 – Mark OP-5 (Page 02), MCO – Mark OP-6, Challan No. 279 dated 2.12.2008 – Ex. OP-5 (pages 1 to 3) and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.


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


7. To reach on the just conclusion to this case, it will be relevant to reproduce instruction No. 124.1 of the Sales Regulations of Electricity Board as under :-

“There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/load or demand surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/Detected by the Authorized Officers either owning to negligence of Board's employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc., in all such cases, separate bill should be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges should not be clubbed in the current bills of the consumer.”


8. Now, it is clear that where the consumer is billed for some dues on account of irregularities/malpractices etc., the separate bill should be issued by giving the complete details of the charges levied. That instruction No. 124.1, referred to above, is clear that the opposite parties should have issued a separate bill by giving complete details of the charges. Since the opposite parties had not given complete details of charges qua Mark C-2, therefore, the demand in question raised by the opposite parties is illegal and cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny.


9. As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is accepted and the demand in question of Rs.2,940/- raised qua letter dated 15.4.2009 - Mark C-2 is quashed. Litigation expenses are assessed at Rs.1000/- to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.

[adv.sumit]

Adarsh Kumari wife of Paramjit Singh r/o village Kalson Tehsil Mukerian District Hoshiarpur.




Complainant


vs.


1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Bhangala Tehsil Mukerian District Hoshiarpur through AEE ( operation), Hoshiarpur.


2. Punjab State Electricity Board through Chairman, Patiala.

Opposite parties





1. The complainant namely Adarsh Kumari 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. H62MS620009D. The said connection is used to run Huller and Atta Chakki to earn the livelihood by way of self employment. The complainant is regularly paying the electricity bills to the OPs, thus, she is a consumer.


2. It is the case of the complainant that Punjab Pollution Control Board allowed her to run the Huller till 9.10.2008, and thereafter, she did not apply to Punjab Pollution Control Board for renewal/ permission as she was not interested to run the milling business in the year 2009.


3. It is the allegation of the complainant that she was surprised to receive bill dated 26.2.2009 qua which the demand of Rs.29140/- was raised. The complainant approached the OPs with the request that her Huller is lying closed but the officials of the OPs did not give any satisfactory reply, rather, raised the threat to disconnect the electricity connection, if the amount of Rs.29140/- is not deposited.


4. It is further the allegation of the complainant that she again received illegal bill dated 28.3.2009 for Rs.59,770/-. The electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected on 18.4.2009. It is further the case of the complainant that she made a request to the OPs to withdraw the illegal bills dated 26.2.2009 and 28.3.2009 but of no avail, hence this complaint.


5. OPs filed the joint reply. Preliminary objection vis-a -vis maintainability, jurisdiction and commercial purpose were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the complainant got connection no. MS620009D in the name of M/s Adarsh Kumari, Modern Huller and Atta Chakki. The sanctioned load of the connection is 85 KW. The said connection is being used for commercial purpose.


6. It is further replied that at the time of getting the connection, letter endorsement no.6163 dated 10.10.2007 was submitted by the complainant. The connection of the complainant is under seasonal category, therefore, she is to be charged as per provisions of SR 81.11.3.1. The demand has been rightly raised as per tariff rates contained in CC 53/2008 dated 7.7.2008. The bill dated 26.2.2009 for Rs.29,140/- and dated 28.3.2009 for Rs.59,770/- had been rightly issued, per rules and regulations of the Board.

The complainant is liable to pay the charges atleast for 4-1/2 months for the purpose of billing of MMC on month to month basis . Since, the sanctioned load of the connection is 85 KW, as such, the tariff of Rs.348/KW, per month for billing purposes alongwith other applicable charges is applicable. Therefore, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.28,594/- on account of MMC plus other applicable charges. Since, the complainant did not make the payment till due date, as such, she was liable to pay the late payment surcharge of Rs.2897/-. The gross payable amount is Rs. 32,037/-. The outstanding amount was added in the bill dated 28.3.2009. The complainant did not deposit the amount within the stipulated period, hence, was liable to pay the surcharge amount of Rs.2873/-. At present, the complainant is in arrears of Rs. 62,643/-. The demand raised through bills dated 26.2.2009 and 28.3.2009 is stated to be legal. The connection of the complainant had been disconnected on 18.4.2009 due to default in payment.


7. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, bill dated 26.2.2009 Mark C-2, dated 28.3.2009 Mark C-3, letter Mark C-4, copy of form no.3 Mark C-5 and letter dated 6.3.2009 Mark C-6 and closed the evidence.


8. In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Kuldip Singh Ex.OP-1, calculation sheet Ex. OP-2, SCO Mark OP-3, A & A form Mark OP-4, rules and regulations Ex. OP-5, detail of bill amount Ex. OP-6 and copy of Pollution Board Certificate Mark OP-7 and closed the evidence.


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


10. The case of the complainant is that she is the holder of electricity connection No. H62MS620009D, which is used to run Huller and Atta Chakki to earn the livelihood by way of self-employment. The grouse of the complainant is that she was surprised to receive the illegal bill dated 26.2.2009 qua which the demand of Rs. 29,140/- was raised. It is further the allegation of the complainant that she again received illegal bill dated 28.3.2009 for Rs. 59,770/-. The opposite parties turned down the request of the complainant to withdraw the illegal demands raised qua bills dated 26.2.2009 and 28.3.2009, referred to above. The opposite parties-Electricity Board raised the defence that the connection of the complainant is under seasonal category, therefore, she is to be charged as per provisions of SR 81.11.3.1.


The demands of Rs. 29,140/- and Rs. 59,770/- raised through bills dated 26.2.2009 and 28.3.2009 – Mark C-2, Mark C-3 is legal and as per rules and regulations of the Electricity Board. The complainant is liable to pay the charges atleast for 4-1/2 months for the purpose of billing of MMC on month to month basis. Since the sanctioned load of the connection is 85 KW, therefore, the tariff of Rs. 348/KW, per month for billing purposes alongwith other applicable charges is applicable, as such, the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 28,594/- on account of MMC plus other applicable charges. Since the complainant did not make the payment till due date, therefore, she was liable to pay the late payment surcharge of Rs. 2897/-. The gross payable amount is Rs. 32,037/-. The outstanding amount was added in the bill dated 28.3.2009. The complainant did not deposit the amount within the stipulated period, hence was liable to pay the surcharge amount of Rs. 2873/-. At present, the complainant is in arrears of Rs. 62,643/-.


11. To decide the controversy finally and effectively, it will be relevant to reproduce the provisions of SR 81.11.3.1 – Ex. OP-5 and its relevant portion is reproduced for the purpose of convenience :

“81.11.3.1 : For exclusive seasonal industries mentioned in Para 81.11.2, billing shall be done monthly. Monthly Minimum Charges as applicable in respective schedule of tariff shall be levied on full sanctioned load for the period these industries work during seasonal period of 9 months (from 1st September to 31st May next year). However, this working period shall be taken as minimum of 4 ½ months for the purpose of billing/levy of MMC on month to Month basis. Industries which work for more than 9 months and up to 12 months billing shall be done/monthly minimum charges levied on full sanctioned load as mentioned above for the seasonal period of 9 months and for the remaining 3 months (i.e. 1st June to 31st Aug.) billing shall be done as per tariff applicable to general industries consumers. Tariff rate/rate of monthly minimum charges shall be as given in schedule of tariff for large supply/medium supply/small power and as applicable depending upon the sanctioned load.”


12. Now, it is established on record that as per provisions of SR 81.11.3.1 – Ex. OP-5, the opposite parties-Electricity Board had a right to charge the complainant for minimum working period of 4 ½ months, as the connection of the complainant is seasonal/for seasonal industry. The opposite parties have also produced on record the tariff rate/rate of monthly minimum charges – Ex. OP-5. The complainant has failed to rebut the stand taken by the opposite parties that the connection is seasonal, therefore, she is to be charged as per provisions of SR 81.11.3.1, referred to above. The complainant has also failed to prove that the opposite parties had illegally applied the tariff of Rs. 348/- per KW per month for billing purposes along with other applicable charges.


13. As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the demand raised by the opposite parties-Electricity Board is legal and the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, with the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, 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.sumit]

Amritpal Kaur age 38 years widow of late Shri Inder Mohan Singh son of Shri Mohan Singh, resident of B-23/161, Gali No. 4, Lalgarh, Opp. DAV College, Hoshiarpur, Tehsil and Distt. Hoshiarpur.


... Complainant


versus



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


2. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Executive Engineer, Civil Lines, Hoshiarpur.

3. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Assistant Executive Engineer/Operation, Civil Lines Sub-Division, Hoshiarpur.

4. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Sub Divisional Officer, Civil Lines, Hoshiarpur.


.......... Opposite Parties




1. The complainant namely Amritpal Kaur has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Stated briefly, the facts of the case are that the electric meter No. SC-68/929 has been installed in the house of the complainant. That the relations of the complainant with her father-in-law are strained.


2. It is the allegation of the complainant that her father-in-law approached opposite parties No. 3 and 4 and pressed upon them to disconnect the said electricity connection, and thereafter, the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 sent notice bearing Memo No. 36 dated 8.1.2009 qua which the complainant was asked to pay the amount, pertaining to meter No. RC-19/115, which was in the name of Pritam Kaur. The complainant is not bound to pay the amount as the said meter is not in her name. The opposite parties have also demanded the title deed of the house of the complainant. The said notice is stated to be illegal.


3. It is further the allegation of the complainant that the employees of the opposite parties came to her house to disconnect the electricity connection. The matter was again reported to opposite parties No. 3 and 4. The complainant was asked to deposit the amount pertaining to electricity connection No. RC-19/115, otherwise the connection will be disconnected. The demand raised by the opposite parties with regard to electricity connection No. RC-19/115 is stated to be illegal, hence this complaint.


4. The opposite parties filed the reply. The 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. It is replied that the connection No. 19/115 is in the name of Smt. Pritam Kaur. That the amount of Rs. 23,399/- with regard to connection No. 19/115 was outstanding, as such the electricity connection was disconnected. It is further replied that other connection No. SD-29/396 was also in the name of Pritam Kaur, thus the outstanding amount of Rs. 23,399/- was debited in her account No. SD-29/396 and was recovered from Smt. Pritam Kaur. It is further replied that the complainant applied for obtaining new connection on 22.7.2008 by affixing the photograph of some other lady. This fact came to the knowledge of the opposite parties after releasing the new connection vide SCO No. 120/44085 dated 15.11.2008 to the complainant. The complainant had obtained the new connection by cheating.


5. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit – Ex. C-1, bill dated 7.4.2007 – Ex. C-2, memo dated 8.1.2009 – Ex. C-3, ration card – Mark C-4 and closed the evidence.


6. In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of R.K. Saini – Ex. R-1, application by the complainant – Ex. R-2, copy of pass book – Ex. R-3, letter dated 15.11.2008 – Ex. R-4, A&A Form – Ex. R-5 (4 sheets), ration card – Ex. R-6, test report – Ex. R-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.


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


8. The grouse of the complainant is that he was asked by the opposite parties to pay the amount of meter No. RC-19/115, which was in the name of Pritam Kaur. The complainant is not bound to pay the amount as the said meter is not in her name. The opposite parties have admitted that the connection No. 19/115 is in the name of Smt. Pritam Kaur and the amount of Rs. 23,399/- was outstanding. That the amount of Rs. 23,399/- was added in the electricity bill pertaining to connection No. SD-29/396, which was also in the name of Smt. Pritam Kaur.


9. The opposite parties have issued Memo No. 36 dated 8.1.2009 – Ex. C-3, qua which the amount of Rs. 23,399/- has been added in the Account of the complainant bearing No. SC-68/929, whereas, the amount of Rs. 23,399/- pertains to Account No. RC-19/115 of Pritam Kaur. This means that the defence raised by the opposite parties that the outstanding amount of Rs. 23,399/- was debited in Account No. SD-29/396 of Pritam Kaur goes to the ground, as the amount of Rs. 23,399/- has been added by the opposite parties in the Account of the complainant bearing No. SC-68/929.


10. Now, the only question which calls decision from this Forum is whether the OPs are entitled to recover the bill amount of electricity connection No. RC-19/115 of Smt. Pritam Kaur from the complainant through his account No. SC-68/929. The answer to this is in the negative.


11. It is settled proposition of law that the charges of one connection cannot be clubbed in the electricity bill of the other. The demand and liability of payment of bill for each service connection is distinct and independent. This being so, the complainant is only liable to pay the electricity charges of his electricity connection. It is an admitted fact that the demand in dispute relates to another connection bearing Account No. RC-19/115 and the same has been added in the account of the complainant. Reliance placed on 2004 (1) C.L.T. 622, Punjab State Electricity Board versus Gurjit Kaur ans 2004 (1) CPR 324, Brijmohan Agrawal versus Executive Engineer (T&D), Chhattisgarh Electricity Board.


12. As a result of the above discussion, it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, with the result, the complaint is accepted and the demand of Rs.23,399/- raised through Memo No. 36 dated 8.1.2009 – Ex. C-3 is quashed. Litigation expenses are assessed at Rs.1000/- to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.

[adv.sumit]

vtar Singh son of Shri Kartar Singh, aged 46 years, Painsra Road, Saila Khurd, District Hoshiarpur.


........ Complainant


versus



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


2. The Punjab State Electricity Board, through the Asstt. Executive Engineer, Paddi Sura Singh, Tehsil Garhshankar, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

......... Opposite Parties



1.

The complainant namely Avtar Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act.” Stated briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the holder of domestic electricity connection having A/c No. AB-36/698. The complainant has been regularly paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties, thus he is a consumer.
2.

It is the allegation of the complainant that he received notice dated 15.1.2009 bearing No. 52 qua which the demand of Rs. 60,363/- was raised by the opposite parties, payable within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the connection was to be disconnected. It is further the case of the complainant that a false allegation had been levelled in the said notice that the complainant had put 'kundi' and was using the electricity unauthorizedly by stopping the meter by putting the wire. The said notice is stated to be illegal and is liable to be quashed, as the checking of the meter was never made in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained on the meter checking memo. The status of the meter is O.K. That the meter of the complainant was never checked in his presence or in the presence of any member of his family. The complainant never committed the theft of electricity, as such the demand of Rs. 60,363/- raised through memo No. 52 dated 15.1.2009 is stated to be illegal, hence this complaint.
3.

The opposite parties filed the joint reply. The 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. However, it is admitted that the complainant is the holder of electricity connection No. AB-36/698. The demand raised through memo No. 52 dated 15.1.2009 of Rs. 60,363/- is stated to be legal. It is replied that on 15.1.2009, the task force of the opposite parties alongwith AEE (Saila Khurd) checked the connection of the complainant. The complainant was committing the theft of electricity by bye-passing the meter. The complainant had fixed the 'kundi' wire in the supply line, coming to the meter and also bye-passed the meter by fixing the direct wire in the power plug, installed in he control board. The checking was done in the presence of the representative of the complainant, Sh. Kulwant Singh son of Darshan Singh, who signed the checking report. The demand of Rs. 60,363/- has been raised on account of theft charges.
4.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, memo no. 52 dated 15.1.2009 – Ex. C-2, bill dated 21.8.2007 – Ex. C-3, bill dated 22.10.2007 – Ex. C-4, bill dated 23.3.2008 – Ex. C-5, bill dated 22.4.2008 – Ex. C-6, bill dated 23.6.2008 – Ex. C-7, bill dated 25.8.2008 – Ex. C-8, bill dated 23.12.2008 – Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence.
5.

In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Tarlochan Singh – Ex. R-1, site checking report – Ex. R-2, show cause notice – Ex. R-3, affidavit of Daljit Singh, JE – Ex. R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.
6.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
7.

The case of the complainant is that he received notice dated 15.1.2009 bearing No. 52 (Ex. C-2) qua which the demand of Rs. 60,363/- was raised by the opposite parties, payable within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the connection was to be disconnected. That a false allegation was levelled in the said notice that the complainant had put 'kundi' and was using the electricity unauthorizedly by stopping the meter by putting the wire. The said notice is stated to be illegal and is liable to be quashed, as the checking of the meter was never made in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained on the meter checking memo. The status of the meter is O.K. That the meter of the complainant was never checked in his presence or in the presence of any member of his family. The complainant never committed the theft of electricity, as such the demand of Rs. 60,363/- raised through memo No. 52 dated 15.1.2009 is stated to be illegal. On the contrary, the opposite parties took the plea that the demand raised through memo No. 52 dated 15.1.2009 of Rs. 60,363/- is legal. It is replied that on 15.1.2009, the task force of the opposite parties alongwith AEE (Saila Khurd) checked the connection of the complainant. The complainant was committing the theft of electricity by bye-passing the meter. The complainant had fixed the 'kundi' wire in the supply line coming to the meter and also bye-passed the meter by fixing the direct wire in the power plug installed in he control board. The checking was done in the presence of the representative of the complainant, Sh. Kulwant Singh son of Darshan Singh, who signed the checking report. The demand of Rs. 60,363/- has been raised on account of theft charges.
8.

Ex. R-2 is the site checking report supported with the affidavit of Sh. Daljit Singh - Ex. R-4. The show cause notice is Ex. R-3. The averments contained in the reply are supported by the affidavit of Tarlochan Singh – Ex. R-1. It has been specifically stated by Tarlochan Singh in his affidavit – Ex. R-1 that the checking was done in the presence of the representative of the complainant namely Kulwant Singh son of Darshan Singh, who signed the checking report – Ex. R-2. The affidavit filed by Tarlochan Singh – Ex. R-1 goes unrebutted, as such it is held that the checking qua Ex. R-2 was done in the presence of the representative of the complainant.
9.

That the contents of the report – Ex. R-2 had been supported by the affidavit – Ex. R-4. Admittedly, the complainant has not produced sufficient evidence to rebut the contents of the site checking report – Ex. R-2. The self-serving affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-1 is also not sufficient to rebut the said checking report, Ex. R-2, therefore, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove that he was not committing the theft of electricity, and on the contrary, the opposite parties have succeeded to prove that the checking of the disputed connection was conducted qua Ex. R-2 in the presence of the representative of the complainant-consumer, who has also signed the same.
10.

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 he 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.sumit]

Joga Singh S/o Sh. Bakshi Singh aged 50 years, R/o Village Alipur, Tehsil Garhshankar, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

….Complainant

Versus

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

2. Executive Engineer, P.S.E.B., Nawanshahr, Distt. SBS Nagar

….Respondent



Joga Singh (hereinafter called as complainant), has filed this complaint against the Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, the Mall, Patiala and Executive Engineer, P.S.E.B., Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar (hereinafter called as Ops No. 1 and 2 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the Ops not to recover the penalty amount of Rs.38,674/- and also refrain from disconnecting the electric tubewell connection of the complainant.

2. In brief allegations of the complainant are that electric tubewell connection under OYT scheme had been released to him by the Ops against application No.8675 dated 16/04/2008 after completion of the entire formalities and depositing of Rs.63,958/- by the complainant as per demand notice issued by the Ops. Vide letter No.1352 dated 13/07/2009 issued by the Ops an amount of Rs.38,674/- had been demanded from the complainant on account of unauthorized use of electricity. The demand was claimed to be totally illegal. The Ops had refused to hear the complainant and rather threatened to disconnect the supply of the complainant. Hence this complaint.

3. In the written version filed by the Ops, the maintainability of the complaint has been challenged on the ground that no connection was ever released to the complaint as alleged. Rather, name of the complainant figured at Sr. No. 4 of the pending list. On 05/07/2009 the task force of the Board had checked the tubewell of the complainant in the presence of his family members namely Rajinder Kaur who signed the checking report at the spot. Tubewell motor was found to be running at the spot un-authorisedly and accordingly notice No.968 was issued to the complainant to deposit Rs.38,674/- as penalty for theft of electricity. It was denied that the demand was illegal. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.

4. In the light of the written version filed by the Ops, the need for evidence of the parties was dispensed with.

5. We have considered the oral submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.

6. Since the Ops have categorically stated that no electric connection had ever been released to the complainant as alleged, and the complainant has not placed on record any documentary proof of the release of electric connection to him, the complainant cannot be held to be the consumer of the Ops as defined U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint therefore is not legally maintainable.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the complaint being not legally maintainable is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

8. Copies of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

9. File be consigned to the record room.

[adv.sumit]

Kashmir Lal S/o Sh. Dev Ram, S/o Banta Ram, R/o Village Happowal, Tehsil Nawanshahr Distt. Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar ….Complainant

Versus

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

2. The Superintending Engineer, PSEB, Nawanshahr

3. The Executive Engineer, PSEB, Banga City

4. S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Banga City SBS Nagar

5. The J.E., PSEB, Banga City, Distt. SBS Nagar.

….Respondent





Kashmir Lal (hereinafter called as complainant), has filed this complaint against Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman, The Superintending Engineer, PSEB, Nawanshahr, The Executive Engineer, PSEB, Banga City, S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Banga City SBS Nagar and The J.E., PSEB, Banga City, Distt. SBS Nagar. (hereinafter called as Ops No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.50,059/- made from him in bill dated 17/02/2009 amounting to Rs.79,360/- and also pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service.

2. The brief admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant is consumer of the Ops with regard to electric connection bearing account No.747336. The Ops had issued bill dated 17/02/2009 to the complainant for Rs.79,360/- in which an amount of Rs.50,059/- was claimed as sundry charges. The request of the complainant to the Ops to withdraw the illegal demand is alleged to have ignored by them. Thus the Ops were stated to be deficient in service towards the complainant. Hence this complainant

3. In the written version filed by the Ops, the maintainability of the complaint has been challenged. On merits it was contended that sanctioned load of the complainant is 1.60KW but during checking of the meter of the complainant on 04/06/2008 he was found using excess load of 2.926KW for raising the construction of his house. He was also using 6.226KW load for construction of a new kothi. The demand was claimed to be perfectly legal. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.

4. Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and other documents.

5. We have considered the oral submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.

6. Evidently, the disputed amount in the bill Ex.C-2 dated is shown under the column sundry charges. The details of the same are not given in the bill. Non doubt, the Ops have placed on record Ex.R-2 site report about the checking dated 17/07/2008 to the effect that supply was being used for construction of a new house by Rana S/o Parkash Ram, ‘Marble Grinder Machine’, ‘Marble Grinder’, alongwith ‘wood cutter’, ‘wood designing machine’ and ‘submersible motor’ were being operated from the electric connection in dispute, yet the presence of the complainant is not recorded over it and rather the consumer was shown to have refused to signed this report. Admittedly, no notice was ever served upon the complainant with regard to alleged checking or the demand of Rs.50,059/- on account of unauthorized use of electricity. In such circumstances, the complainant can not be straightway burdened with the liability, without making him aware of the facts pleaded in the written version. The deficiency in service on the part of the Ops towards the complainant is dully established.

7. As a consequence of the forgoing reasons, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.50,059/- made from the complainant in the bill dated 17/02/2009. The Ops are however at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings regarding this demand after serving a proper notice on the complainant and giving him an opportunity of being heard, within one month of the receipt of copy of this order.

8. In the meanwhile, the supply of the complainant shall not be disconnected for non-payment of the remaining amount.

9. The Ops are also burdened with Rs.500/- as litigation cost.

10. The copies of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

11. File be consigned to the record room.

[adv.sumit]

Raj Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, R/o Masandan Patti, Banga Tehsil and Distt. Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar ….Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Executive Engineer, City Sub Division, Banga, Tehsil and Distt. SBS Nagar

2. S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, City Sub Division, Banga, Tehsil and Distt. SBS Nagar

….Respondent



Raj Singh (hereinafter called as complainant), has filed this complaint against Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Executive Engineer, City Sub Division, Banga, Tehsil and Distt. SBS Nagar and S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, City Sub Division, Banga, Tehsil and Distt. SBS Nagar (hereinafter called as Ops No. 1 and 2 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the Ops to withdraw the bill dated 09/02/2009 for Rs.33,200/-

2. The brief admitted facts of this complaint are that Joginder Singh deceased father of the complainant was consumer of the Ops with regard to electric connection bearing account No.N11CF250703X. Bill dated 10/10/2008 had been issued by the Ops in which an amount of Rs.20,680/- had been claimed on account of sundry charges. The said bill was challenged by the complainant in an earlier complaint, which had been disposed of vide order dated 24/10/2008 with a direction to the complainant to apply for transfer of the electric connection in his name, which was duly complied with by him. After the transfer of the connection in his name, the Ops have issued bill dated 09/02/2008 to the complainant in which an amount of Rs.23,193/- has been claimed as sundry charges. The demand is alleged to be illegal, as no notice was ever served upon the complainant. Hence this complainant.

3. In the written version filed by the Ops, the aforesaid facts have not been disputed. However it is contended that the task force of the Board had checked the electric connection and found a “Marble Grinder Machine” alongwith “Marble Grinder” and “Marble Cutter” being run unauthorisedly. Deepa and Jeeta sons of the complainant were alleged to be present at the time of checking but they refused to sign the report. Accordingly a notice was claimed to have been served upon the complainant to deposit Rs.20,680/-. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.

4. Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and other documents.

5. We have considered the oral submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.

6. From the facts on the file, it is evident that the checking of the electric connection in dispute had been conducted on 03/12/2007 and the earlier demand of Rs.20,680/- had also been raised against Joginder Singh deceased consumer who was father of the complainant. The present demand of Rs.23,193/- infact is related to the checking. No doubt, the Ops have placed on record Ex. R-2 copy of the checking report, yet there is nothing on record to show that any notice of the demand on the basis of the said checking had ever been served upon deceased Joginder Singh during his life time or upon the complainant till filing of this complaint. In such circumstances the complainant could not be straightway burdened with the liability, without giving him an opportunity of being heard. The deficiency on the part of the Ops thus is dully established.

7. As a consequence of the forgoing reasons, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.23,193/- made from the complainant in the bill dated 09/02/2009. The Ops are however at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings regarding this demand after serving a proper notice on the complainant and giving him an opportunity of being heard, within one month of the receipt of copy of this order.

8. In the meanwhile the supply of the complainant shall not be disconnection for non-payment of the remaining amount.

9. The Ops are also burdened with Rs.500/- as litigation cost.

10. The copies of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

11. File be consigned to the record room.

[adv.sumit]

Kuldip Singh son of late Sh. Gurnam Singh, resident of Gidri, Doraha, Distt. Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Doraha City, Distt. Ludhiana through Asstt. Executive Engineer.

(Opposite party)





O R D E R





1. Sh. Gurnam Singh, father of the complainant, had obtained electric connection of account no. KB43/0056W from opposite party for his residential use. After death of father of the complainant in May, 1997, complainant has been using the connection for domestic purpose. He claimed having paid all bills qua this connection and despite it opposite party vide bill dated 4.11.2008 by way of sundry charges claimed Rs.26,574/-. When approached opposite party, they claimed having raised the demand on the basis of the checking report dated 17.8.2008 when was found committing theft of energy. He says that no theft was ever committed. Report is false and wrong. So, sundry charges being illegal deserve to be set aside. For deficiency by opposite party, in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, he has sought compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation cost Rs.5500/-.

2. Opposite party did not contest the complaint despite service and was proceeded ex-parte.

3. By way of ex-parte evidence, complainant tendered his own affidavit Ex.CA1 as well as bill Ex.C.1 wherein sundry charges of Rs.26,574/- were claimed.

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

5. There is no justification on the record that why the sundry charges were claimed from the complainant. In his complaint supported by an affidavit, complainant has stated that no checking was done, demand raised is illegal and he never committed theft of energy. In view of this unrebutted evidence, we conclude that sundry charges of Rs.26,574/- in bill dated 4.11.2008 Ex.C1 was arbitrarily and illegally claimed by the opposite party.

6. Therefore, we allow this complaint and pass ex-parte order setting aside the claim of sundry charges of Rs.26,574/- qua electric connection in question. In peculiar circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File b completed and consigned to record.

[adv.sumit]

Sat Bhushan son of Sh. Prem Chand, resident of 66, Model Town, Samrala Road,Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.

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



2. The XEN/S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Khanna-1, Ludhiana. (Opposite parties)







O R D E R



1. Sh. Sat Bhushan, above noted complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Electricity Board. Briefly stated, facts of the complaint are that electric connection bearing account no. K33CK350582Y is installed in his premises and used for domestic purpose. He has been making payment of the bills regularly. Bill dated 22.5.2008 was issued for Rs.31560/- by adding an amount of Rs.28,614/- as sundry charges +2681 ED +265 octroi. No details were given. on receipt of the bill, complainant contacted the concerned official of opposite party to know the details but with no result. Averred that no checking was ever made. He was threatened to disconnect the electricity supply, in case the amount is not deposited. There is a clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as he has been condemned unheard. He never committed any theft of electricity nor ever tampered with the meter. The demand is illegal and unjustified. It has been prayed that the complaint be accepted and the opposite party be directed to withdraw the claim of Rs.31,560/- raised through bill dated 22.5.08 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by taking the preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service. The complainant himself challenged meter by submitting an affidavit dated 20.12.2007 alleging therein that reading of the meter jumped from 3567 to 10002 and he wanted to get the meter checked from the M.E. Lab. he deposited Rs.120/- as meter challenge free on 26.12.2007. As such, Meter Change orders dated 28.12.2007 was affected on 24.1.2008 by changing the meter. Removed meter is yet to be checked in the M.E. Lab. Instead of waiting for results of the M.E. Lab., complainant filed this complaint on false and frivolous grounds, which is liable to be dismissed being pre-mature. Fact regarding installation of the electric connection in the name of the complainant is admitted. Raising of the bill is also admitted. Before issuance of the bill dated 19.1.2008, complainant moved an affidavit and challenged the meter which is yet to be checked in the M.E. Lab. No amount was charged from the complainant.

The bill was corrected and only a sum of Rs.556/- were charged in the bill dated 22.5.2008Only the previous dues were added in the bill. Complainant paid only the current charges and remaining amount were to be charged as per the result of the M.E. Lab. No such bill was ever sent nor any such amount as sundry charges was claimed. Their act does not amount to deficiency in service. As no demand of rs.31560/- was raised, there is no question of withdrawing the same. 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 being without any merit.

3. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parities led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

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

5. The complainant argued that the opposite party issued a bill dated 22.5.08 (Ex.C.1) for Rs. 31,560/- which includes sundry charges of Rs. 28,614/- energy charges + 2681/- ED +265 Octroi which is to be payable on 6.6.2008 is illegal and not genuine and to be quashed. As the complainant is paying the bills regularly and all the consumption charges have been paid by thecomplainant.

6. Opposite party argued that in this case the complainant himself challenged the meter by submitting an affidavit dated 20.12.07(Ex.R.3) alleging therein that reading of the meter had jumped from 3567 to 10002 and he also wants to get the meter tested from the M.E. Lab. and he has also deposited Rs.120/-(Ex.R.2) as meter challenge fee on 26.12.2007. The opposite party argued that as the complainant himself wanted to get the meter tested from the M.E. Lab. for which he has deposited Rs.120/- as testing fee, and on the basis of this that the complainant has challenged the meter , meter is yet to be checked in the M.E. Lab. Opposite party argued that before result of the M.E.Lab, complainant has filed the complaint on false and frivolous ground which is to be dismissed as the amount charged from the complainant based on the reading recorded by the meter. Hence, the amount, which has been charged as Rs.28,614/-energy charges + 2681/- ED + 265/- Octroi in the total bill for Rs.31,560/- is chargeable, legal and valid.

7. From the above facts and figures, it is quite clear that complainant has challenged the meter as he received the bill dated 22.5.2008 which is high. Complainant also challenged the accuracy of the meter and deposited the fee of Rs.120/-vide receipt no.460 dated 26.12.2007 Ex.R2 and on the basis of the receipt, MCO was issued vide dated 28.12.2007 and effected on 24.1.2008 Ex.R.1. From the facts it is quite clear that the complainant was interested to get the meter tested from the M.E. Lab. for which he has already deposited the fee on 26.12.2007. from the records and discussions, the For a reached at the conclusion that the meter of the complainant which was changed vide MCO dated 28.12.2007 and effected on 24.1.08 is to be get tested from the M.E. Lab. to see the accuracy of the meter.

So, opposite party is hereby directed to send the notice to the complainant and date be mentioned on the notice on which date the meter is to be tested in the M.E. Lab. and the account of the consumer may be overhauled on the basis of the accuracy of test result of the meter found while testing in the M.E. Lab. in the presence of the opposite party as well as the complainant. It is also to mention here that whether the meter is recording reading fast or slow and on the basis of this result the amount is to be chargeable to the complainant and this test result of the accuracy of the meter is binding upon both the parties. Hence, complaint admitted. Compliance of the order be made within one month of the receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs.

[adv.sumit]

Darshan Singh son of Major Singh, aged 58 years resident of village Bilga, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.

…..Complainant.

Versus



1- PSEB through its Senior Executive Engineer/Addl. Executive Engineer, Estate Divisions Spl/ Giaspura, Tehsil and District,Ludhiana.

2 Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, office, Sahjnewal, Tehsil and Di8strict Ludhiana. ….Opposite parties.



O R D E R




1- In this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, brief facts are that complainant is consumer of electric connection account no.ST2 186 of 03 BHP. That the connection is of Sh.Harnek Singh son of Charan Singh and the complainant is joint and the complainant spent the money for the installation and other charges jointly for the release of this connection. That the complainant used to irrigate his field from the above said electric motor connection alongwith Sh.Harnek Singh, as such complainant is also consumer under the Act.


That the complainant has never contravened with the rules and regulation of the board and is not in any arrears of consumption charges. That all of a sudden complainant was astonished to receive the memo no.790 dated 07.08.2008 from Ops in which they alleged to have checked on 29.07.2008 vide checking report no.06/302 by the Senior Executive Engineer -Enforcement-1 and found that the complainant was running unauthorized electric motor connection of 3 BHP by directly connecting the same with the system of the board and an amount of Rs.23204/- has been debited in the account of the complainant bearing account No.ST2-186. That he never used any unauthorized load thereby are running the 3 BHP motor as alleged in the report. That the alleged report is illegal, null, void and is not binding on the complainant.


The Ops are not entitled to raise the amount of Rs.23204/- against him. Thereafter, received memo no.790 dated 07.08.2008, the complainant approached the Ops and requested to withdraw the same, but they threatened to disconnect the connection if not paid. That he submitted his objection within the stipulated period but the Ops did not consider the same and also did not give opportunity to hear them. That the complainant never committed theft of electric energy. That the connection was not checked the Ops in the presence of the complainant. That the Ops have fabricated the report and it is illegal, null and void and not binding on the complainant. So, claiming such acts of opposite party, amounting to deficiency in-service, sought quashing of demand of Rs.23204/- and compensation of Rs.10000/- for causing mental tension and harassment.

2- In reply, opposite party took objections that complaint is not maintainable. And cannot be decided in the summary procedure, it needs elaborate evidence which is necessary for adjudicating the matter in dispute. That the complainant is free user of electricity. The Ops are supplying free electricity to the agriculture sector. The complainant did not purchase the services of the Ops, so not the consumer under the Act. That the connection is running in the name of Sh.Harnek Singh at Bilga Village and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Ops. On merits, the complaint is admitted to the extent that an electric connection bearing account no.ST-2/186 with sanctioned load 3 BHP is running in the name of an Sh.Harnek Singh.

That the complainant was committing violation of rules. That the said connection was checked by Er.Mandeep Singh Senior Executive Engineer/Addl/S.E.Enforcement-1 PSEB Ludhiana on 29/07/2008. At the time of checking it was found that 3 BHP Mono-Block electric motor was running illegally by installing direct wire from the electric poles of account No.St-2/186 L.T.lines, as per sketch shown on the checking report. And report was prepared by Er.Mandeep Singh at the spot as the complainant was committing theft of electric energy, so penalty was imposed for committing theft of energy and an amount of Rs.23204/- was demanded from him.

That the complainant was got served with provisional notice/memo no.790 dated 07.08.2008 under the Indian Electricity Act,2003 The complainant was directed to deposit the amount within time. The complainant was further directed to submit objection if any against the demand raised by the Ops on account of theft of energy. That the demand raised by the Ops through notice/memo no.790 dated 07/08/.2008 was legal and as per the rules. That the complainant is liable to pay the impugned demand raised by them which is legal, valid and as per rules, so there is no question of withdrawal, they are also empowered to disconnect the supply of electricity on account of nonpayment of the said amount. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. The Ops prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

3- Both the parties, in support of their respective claims, adduced evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.

4- We have heard ld. counsel for parties and scanned the documents and other material placed on the file.

5- Complainant argued that he was astonished to receive the memo no.790 dated 07.08.2008 from Ops in which they alleged to have checked on 29.07.2008 vide checking report no.06/302 by the Senior Executive Engineer -Enforcement-1 and found that the consumer was running unauthorized electric motor connection of 3 BHP by directly connecting the same with the system of the board and an amount of Rs.23204/- has been debited in the account and it was mentioned in the report Ex.R1 of the complainant bearing account No.ST2-186. the complainant argued that he never used any unauthorized electric motor connection of 3 BHP as averred by the Ops. Therefore, the amount of Rs.23204/- which has been charged against theft of energy is illegal, null and void and to be quashed. Complainant also argued that he had submitted his objection within the stipulated period but the Ops did not consider the same and further did not give opportunity to hear them. That the complainant never committed theft of electric energy. That the connection was not checked by the Ops in the presence of the complainant and the same has been concocted and the Ops has sent this impugned demand done only to harass him. Therefore, the memo dated 07.08.2008 may kindly be withdrawn as it is not as per the rules and regulations of the PSEB.

6. OP argued that the connection of the complainant was checked by Er.Mandeep Singh Senior Executive Engineer/Addl/S.E.Enforcement-1 PSEB Ludhiana on 29/07/2008 and found that complainant was running 3 BHP Mono-Block electric motor which was illegally installed through direct wire from the electric poles of account No.St-2/186 the same is shown in sketch shown of the checking report Ex.R1. subsequently, report was prepared by Er.Mandeep Singh at the spot as the complainant was committing theft of electric energy, so penalty was imposed for committing theft of energy and an amount of Rs.23204/- was demanded from him. That the complainant was got served with provisional notice/memo no.790 dated 07.08.2008 under the Indian Electricity Act,2003 The complainant was directed to deposit the amount within time. Ops argued that the complainant was directed to submit objections, if any, against the impugned demand raised by them on account of theft of energy. Thus, the demand raised by the Ops notice/memo no.790 dated 07/08/2008 was legal and as per the rules and to be chargeable from the complainant and so there is no question of withdrawal of the said demand. Ops further argued that the checking officer also pointed out that nobody was present at the time of checking therefore he was unable to get the signatures on the checking report Ex.R1 itself, but the remarks was given that nobody was present at the spot. OP also argued that the checking officer Er.Mandeep Singh Senior Executive Engineer/Addl/S.E.Enforcement-1 PSEB Ludhiana in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A has affirmed that the complainant on 29.07.2008 was found using 3 BHP Mono-Block electric motor was illegally by installing direct wire from the electric poles of account No.St-2/186 L.T.lines, as per sketch shown on the checking report Ex.R1. Therefore provisional order of assessment memo no.790 dated 07.08.2008 under the Indian Electricity Act,2003 Ex.R2 is legal and genuine.

7. From the above facts and figures, it is quite clear that the connection of the complainant was checked on 29/07/2008 (Ex.R.1) in which the complainant was indulging in theft of energy using 3 BHP Mono-Block electric motor was illegally by installing direct wire from the electric poles of account No.St-2/186 L.T.lines,. As the complainant was indulging in theft of energy, therefore, provisional order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity vide memo dated 07/08/2008 was issued to the consumer and 7 days time was given but did not act upon it. Er.Mandeep Singh Senior Executive Engineer/Addl/S.E.Enforcement-1 PSEB Ludhiana on 29/07/2008 and found that complainant was running 3 BHP Mono-Block electric motor which was illegally installed through direct wire from the electric poles of account No.St-2/186 the same is shown in sketch of the checking report Ex.R1 that nobody was present at the time of checking therefore he was unable to get the signatures on the checking report Ex.R1 itself, but the remarks was given that nobody was present at the sight.

8. Therefore, while going through records and discussion For a believed that the complainant was indulging in theft of energy using 3 BHP Mono-Block electric motor was illegally by installing direct wire from the electric poles of account No.St-2/186 L.T.lines. Provisional order of assessment under section 126 of Indian Electricity Act for Rs.23204/- vide memo No.790 dated 07.08.2008 (Ex.R1) was issued. It is to mention here that in this case, no final order of assessment under section 126 of Indian Electricity Act,2003 was issued. Furthermore, Fora can entertain the grievances of the complainant where final order of assessment has been issued to the complainant in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, in case reported as 2008 CTJ-837(CP) (NCDRC, New Delhi) Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Anwar Ali.

9. In this case only provisional order of assessment under section 126 of EA,2003 has been issued and no final order of assessment under section 126 of EA has been issued. Therefore Fora cannot entertain the complaint. Complaint finds no merit, hence dismissed. Amount deposited with OP in this case be refunded. However, this order shall not disentitle to Ops to issue provisional assessment order and follow the right procedure and give the complainant proper hearing and act accordingly, as per norms. No order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after complaince.

[adv.sumit]

Sewak Singh S/o.Sh.Gurdit Singh resident of Village Giddri, Near Doraha, District Ludhiana.

…..Complainant.

Versus



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

2 Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division City, Doraha District Ludhiana through its Assistant Executive Engineer (Distribution). ….Opposite parties.




O R D E R






1- Brief facts of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are that Complainant has taken a domestic connection for the purpose of domestic use bearing account no.KB-43/326DS installed in his premises. That the complainant has been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That the complainant belongs to schedule caste category for which the Punjab government has given a concession ie. Free electricity units upto the consumption of 200 units as such the complainant is paying as per the scheme launched by the Government for SC category.


That the premises of the complainant is being checked by the officials from time to time and they are taking meter reading in routine and never pointed out any defects in the meter. That to the surprise of the complainant he received a memo no.866 of 21.08.2008 vide which they demanded Rs.17229/- on the basis of checking dated 17.08.2008 and LCR No.003/15 dated 17/08/2008 alleged therein that the meter pulse was not running and on the basis of alleged checking provisional order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of EA-2003 was raised and advised the complainant to deposit these charges within 7 days from the service of the notice or submit objections within 7 days. That the alleged checking was never conducted in the premises of the complainant nor any official has ever visited for the purpose of neither checking nor the same was conducted in the presence of any family member, that the alleged report is false and fabricated and has been prepared by the officials of Ops with some vested interest and malafide intention.


Thereafter the complainant received memo no.866 dated 21.08.2008 vide which they have made the final assessment for alleged unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of EA-2003 without considering the reply submitted by him. That the memo raised by Ops is illegal, null and void, arbitrary malafide and against the principles of natural justice as the meter was in OK condition and seals intact; that complainant was not in arrears; that no notice has been served upon the complainant’; demand raised by Ops is baseless; that the meter was never sent to Chief Electrical Inspector for checking its accuracy. That due to the deeds of the Ops, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and prays for quashing the impugned demand and to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation as he has suffered a mental pain and agony and harassment and liable .

2- In reply, opposite party took preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. It is a case of theft of energy and the order of assessment was made under section 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and the remedy of appeal is provided to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Additional Deputy Commissioner in respect of the category of the consumers. Actual facts are that the connection bearing account No.DB-43/326 was checked by Kishore Kumar JE City Doraha Division vide checking register No.003/15 dated 17.08.2008 in the presence of Chamkaur Singh representative of the consumer. At the time of checking he found and reported that the pulse of the meter was no working. Main switch was switched off. Grip was taken out which was attached to it and the electricity of the house, fans and bulbs were working.


The electricity was being stolen from the back street by applying direct wire and Kundi, chamkaur Singh was present at the time of spot and he refused to sign the checking report. On the basis of the above said checking the account of the consumer was overhauled and a provisional order of assessment /memo no.866 of 21.08.2008 vide which they demanded Rs.17229/- on the basis of checking dated 17.08.2008 and to file objections if any within seven days after receipt of this notice failing which final order of assessment will be passed. .However, they failed to do so and filed the present false and frivolous complaint malafidely before this Fora. Demand is legal and genuine. Rests of the allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3- Both the parties, in support of their respective claims, adduced evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.

4- We have heard ld. counsel for parties and scanned the documents and other material placed on the file.

5- Complainants having account bearing account no. KB-43/326DS argued that the consumer is using the connection and making payment of bills regularly. Complainant argued that he received a memo no.866 of 21.08.2008 vide which they demanded Rs.17229/- on the basis of checking dated 17.08.2008 vide LCR No.003/15 alleged therein that the meter pulse was not working and on the basis of alleged checking provisional order of assessment vide Memo No.866 dated 21.08.2008 Ex.R2 for unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of EA-2003 was raised for Rs.17229/- and advised the complainant to deposit these charges within 7 days from the service of the notice or submit objections within 7 days.


Complainant argued that checking was never conducted in the premises of the complainant nor any official has ever visited for the purpose of checking nor the same was conducted in the presence of any family member, that the alleged report is false and fabricated and has been prepared by the officials of Ops with some vested interest and malafide intention and it is illegal and not genuine and issued to harass the complainant.


He also argued that memo no.866 dated 21.08.2008 vide which they have made the final assessment for alleged unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of EA-2003 was issued without considering the reply submitted by him. That the memo raised by Ops is illegal, null and void, arbitrary malafide and against the principles of natural justice as the meter was in OK condition and seals intact.





6- OP argued that the connection bearing account No.KB-43/326 was checked by Kishore Kumar JE City Doraha Division vide checking register No.003/15 dated 17.08.2008 in the presence of Chamkaur Singh representative of the consumer. At the time of checking he found and reported that the pulse of the meter was not working. Main switch was switched off. Grip was taken out which was attached to it and the electricity of the house, fans and bulbs were working.


The electricity was being stolen from the back street by applying direct wire and Kundi, Chamkaur Singh was present at the time of spot and he refused to sign the checking report. On the basis of the above said checking, the account of the consumer was overhauled and a provisional order of assessment memo no.866 of 21.08.2008 vide which a demand for Rs.17229/- was raised on the basis of checking dated 17.08.2008 and complainant was asked to file objections if any within seven days after receipt of this notice failing which final order of assessment will be passed. But the complainant failed to file any objections against the provisional order of assessment vide memo No.866 dated 21.08.2008.

7- From above facts and figure, it is clear that connection of the complainant was checked by Kishore Kumar JE City Doraha Division vide checking register No.003/15 dated 17.08.2008(Ex.R1) in the presence of Chamkaur Singh representative of the consumer. At the time of checking found and reported that the pulse of the meter was not working. Main switch was switched off. Grip was taken out which was attached to it and the electricity of the house, fans and bulbs were working. The electricity was being stolen from the back street by applying direct wire and Kundi, chamkaur Singh was present at the time of checking but he refused to sign the checking report. Sh. Kishore Kumar JE has submitted affidavit Ex.RW1/A about his checking dated 17.08.2008 (Ex.R1) and as the complainant was committing theft of energy, therefore, provisional order of assessment vide memo no.866 dated 21.08.2008 under section 126 of Indian Electricity Act,2003 for Rs.17229/- against the checking dated 17.08.2008 Ex.R1 was issued, but in this case, final order of assessment under section 126 of EA,2003 has not been issued.


Therefore, Fora can entertain the grievances of the complainant where final order of assessment has been issued to the complainant in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, in case reported as 2008 CTJ-837(CP) (NCDRC, New Delhi) Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Anwar Ali.

8- Fora reaches at the conclusion that, in this case provisional order of assessment vide No. 866/ 21.08.2008 under section 126 of EA 2003 for Rs.17229/- was issued and no final order of assessment under section 126 of EA 2003 was issued. As Fora can entertain the complaint where final order of assessment under section 126 of EA 2003 is issued, which has not been issued in this case. Hence complaint finds no merit and the same is dismissed. However, this order shall not disentitle the OP to issue provisional order of assessment under section 126 of EA 2003 and follow the right procedure and give proper hearing to the grievance of the complainant and if required act accordingly as per norms. Amount deposited if any, in this case be refunded to the complainant. 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.sumit]

Runki Ram son of Shri Sham Chand, resident of Village Kaind, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.

….Complainant

Versus



Punjab State Electricity Board, Ludhiana, through its Executive Engineer, Sarinh, Sub Division, Ludhiana.

….Opposite Party






Sh.Runki Ram, complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its Executive Engineer -opposite party directing them to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.21230/- raised vide bill dated 22.09.2008 and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation of Rs.2000/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Sh.Runki Ram, complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having DS connection bearing account no. U445F0316M installed at his premises having sanctioned load of 0.54 KW. That the meter of the complainant was not working properly since its installations. That the complainant made several verbal requests, but no attentions was given. That the bills were being issued on presumptions and assumptions on the basis of average. That the complainant has been paying the charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden he received a bill to the tune of Rs.21230/- to be deposited by 22.09.2008 or the said connection would be disconnected.


That the impugned amount was charged on the basis of direct supply of MC meter bye pass on the basis of checking report. Neither the complainant was provided any time of checking nor was any signature of the complainant was taken. That the Ops have acted arbitrarily and illegally just to harass the complainant. That the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board time and again and requested to withdraw the impugned amount, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.10000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint.

3. Ops filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complainant has not disclosed true facts before this Fora, Actual facts are that electric connection of the complainant was checked by some officials of PSEB on 11/03/2008 vide LCR No.97/39 dated 11/03/2008 and at the time of said checking, the electric connection in question was checked in the presence of the complainant and he was found committing theft of electricity by drawing electricity directly through KUNDI and he was also found using 1.900 KW load against his sanctioned load of 0.54 KW as such, after the above mentioned checking, the account of the consumer was overhauled and an amount of Rs.12691/- was found recoverable from the consumer on account of theft of energy and load surcharge besides consumption charges and total amount of Rs.12970/- were charged from the consumer who failed to deposit the abovesaid amount alongwith the electricity consumption charges for the subsequent period i.e. from 04/2008 as such bill amount to Rs.21230/- payable upto 22/09/2008 including electricity consumption charges for the above mentioned period was sent to the consumer who failed to deposit the same and filed the same and filed the present complaint. On merits, the OP took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.

4. Complainant argued that he received a bill dated 07/08/2008 for Rs.21230/- which is to be payable by 22.09.2008 the complainant also argued that the said bill was sent on the basis of direct supply of MC Meter bye pass on the basis of checking report. He further added that the load of electric connection is only 0.54, hence the direct connection for stealing energy does not arise. That the said checking is alleged to be wrong and not genuine and was never conducted in his presence and also there is no signature of the complainant obtained by them. Therefore the bill amounts to be quashed.

5. Ops argued that the connection in question was checked by the official of PSEB vide LCR 97/39 dated 11/3/2008 Ex.R1/A, and at the time of checking complainant was committing theft of energy by drawing electric directly through KUNDI and he was also found using 1.900 KW load against his sanctioned load of 0.54 KW as such the account of the consumer was overhauled to Rs.12691/- which was recoverable from the consumer on account of theft of energy and load surcharge besides consumption, lateron this demand was revised for Rs.10598/-vide revised final notice Ex.R4,. Ops also argued that amount of Rs.10598/- is recoverable in place of 12691/- and the excess amount of Rs.2253/- was refunded vide sundry no.146/30/1 and after correction of the mistake in calculation a revised notice dated 27.10.2008 Ex.R4 was sent to the complainant who has not deposited the same.


Ops argued that the complainant also was given copy of report and got the signatures LTI (left thumb impression) of Runki Rani thereof. Ops also said that the checking officials vide affidavit Ex.RW-1/A of Sh.Jagjit Singh Bhatti, Addl. Executive Engineer-2, Enforcement Squad-5, PSEB Ludhiana which he has stated that the checking was conducted by him on 11/3/2008 vide LCR No.97/39 alongwith Sh.Pawan Kumar, AAE, PSEB,Ludhiana in the presence of complainant and was found committing theft of electricity in aforesaid means and his account was overhauled and the impugned amount was demanded on account of theft of energy and load surcharge.


Further submitted in his affidavit that the consumer was using excess load of 1.900 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.54 KW and also got signatures LTI of Raunki Ram on the checking report Ex.R1/A and complainant was issued provisional assessment order under 126 of Indian Electricity Act,2003 notice no.1964 dated 27.10.2008 for Rs.10598/- and seven days time was given to the complainant for personal hearing but he did not act upon, and therefore the amount was put in the bill amounting to Rs.21230/- dated 07.09.2008 which is to be chargeable from the complainant and this bill is genuine and legal and to be recoverable from the complainant.

6. From the above facts and figures, it clears that the complainant was committing theft of energy by drawing electricity directly through KUNDI and he was also found using excess load 1.900 KW against his sanctioned load of 0.54 KW as such the demand was raised vide notice no.1964 dated 27.10.2008 for Rs.10598/- ( Ex.R4) for unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and later on it was added in the total bill Rs.21230/- dated 07.09.2008 as consumption charges Ex.C1, is legal and genuine and recoverable from the complainant. Sh.Jagjit Singh Bhatti, Addl.


Executive Engineer-2, Enforcement Squad-5, PSEB Ludhiana submitted an affidavit about checking dated 11.03.2008 Ex.RW1/A in which he issued that he checked the connection alongwith Sh.Pawan Kumar, AAE, PSEB, Ludhiana and found that the complainant was committing theft of energy by drawing electricity directly through KUNDI and he was also found using 1.900 KW load against his sanctioned load of 0.54 KW, complainant put his signatures by LTI of Raunki Ram and checking was conducted in presence of the complainant.

7. Fora reaches at the conclusion, that the complainant was committing theft of energy by drawing electricity directly through KUNDI and he was also found excess load using 1.900 KW against his sanctioned load of 0.54 KW. Therefore, total bill amount for consumption charges for Rs.21230/- dated 07.09.2008 which also includes Rs.10598/- theft charges and load surcharge is legal and genuine to be recoverable from the complainant. Thus, complaint finds no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order shall be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.

[adv.sumit]

Gurbachan Singh aged 75 years son of Sh. Ganda Singh resident of village Ladian Kalan, Post Office Bagga Khurd, Tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana.



….Complainant.

Versus



Punjab State Electricity Board, through its XEN/Addl. S.E.Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana Divn. Spl. PSEB, Ludhiana.

….Opposite party.







O R D E R



1- Case of the complainant in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is that he is holder electric connection vide account no.7F11/87 of DS category, with sanctioned load of 5 KW. He is using this connection and regularly making payment of bills. Never contravened rules and regulations of the PSEB. Complainant was surprised to receive memo no.544 dated 1.9.2008 for Rs.121838/- on allegations that connection was checked by AEE Tech. on 17.8.2008 and found complainant using electricity directly connecting PVC wire with system of the Board. In fact, complainant never committed theft of energy nor ever used excess load than sanctioned.


Connection was never checked in presence of the complainant by competent person of the Board. On receipt of memo, complainant approached opposite party with a request to withdraw the said memo, but to no effect. Rather was threatened to face disconnection if amount not paid. Complainant also submitted objections to the provisional assessment order but no opportunity of being heard was given to him. So, claiming this act of opposite party amounting to deficiency in service, has sought setting aside of impugned demand and compensation of Rs.30000/- alongwith Rs.11000/- as litigation costs.

2- Complaint was contested by opposite party by filing written reply, taking objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint, as it is a case of theft of energy. Order of assessment was made u/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and remedy of appeal is provided to Sub Divisional Magistrate and Addl. Deputy Commissioner. Complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Averred that connection of complainant was checked on 17.8.2008 by Sh. Chuhar Chand AAE/Tech. Unit-II, alongwith Sh. Kulbhushan Sharma AJE vide LCR No.12/1233 and complainant was found committing theft of energy, by taking direct supply from LT line by bye passing the meter by removing the kit-kats. Checking was made in presence of the consumer, but he refused to sign the report and a note to this effect was given in the report. On the basis of this report, demand of Rs.121838/- was raised as per rules.


Complainant did not file any objections and provisional order was made final and final order of assessment was also conveyed to consumer raising demand of Rs.121838/-. He was asked to deposit the amount within 7 days or prefer the appeal within 30 days of said order. However, inspite of filing appeal, he filed this complaint on false grounds. Since, complainant was found committing theft of energy, so he is liable to pay this amount. All other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and it has been prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3- To prove their respective cases, parties adduced evidence by way of affidavits and documents and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- Complainant argued that he was astonished to receive memo no.544 dated 1.9.2008 for Rs.121838/- in which it is alleged that electric connection of complainant was checked by AEE Tech. on 17.8.2008 and found complainant using electricity directly by connecting PVC wire with system of the Board, and committing theft of electricity. Further argued that he has not committed any theft of energy and he has also mentioned that no connection was not checked by any official of the Board in his presence. Therefore, this demand for Rs.121838/- is illegal and not genuine and liable to be quashed.

5- Opposite party argued that connection of the complainant was checked on 17.8.2008 by Sh. Chuhar Chand AAE Tech. Unit no.II, alongwith Sh. Kulbhushan Sharma AJE, vide LCR No.12/1233 and it was found that complainant was committing theft of energy, by taking direct supply from LT Line, by bye passing the meter by removing the kit-kats. Also argued that checking was conducted in presence of the consumer, but he refused to sign the report. As the complainant was indulging in theft of energy, demand of Rs.121838/- was raised as per rules of the Board and the consumer was directed to deposit the amount within 7 days or prefer appeal within 30 days of the said order before appellate authority notified by the Punjab Govt., but the complainant did not act upon and filed a false and frivolous complaint before this Forum.


Further argued that checking official Sh. Chuhar Singh AAE Tech. and Sh. Kulbushan Sharma AJE Unit-II, Agar Nagar Sub Divn. PSEB, Ludhiana, have submitted affidavit Ex.RW1/A about their checking dated 17.8.2008 Ex.R1. As the complainant was indulging in theft of energy, provisional assessment order for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, was issued vide memo no.1944 dated 1.9.2008 for Rs.121838/-, giving 7 days notice to deposit the amount or submit objections, if any. But complainant did not act upon and further, final assessment order for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, was issued vide memo no.2058 dated 30.10.2008 for Rs.121838/-, which is legal and genuine and to be chargeable from the consumer.

6- From above facts and figures, it is quite obvious that connection of complainant was checked vide LCR No.12/1233 dt.17.8.2008(Ex.R1) by Sh. Chuhar Chand AAE Tech. and Sh. Kulbhushan Sharma AJE, unit no.II, Agar Nagar Sub Divn., PSEB, Ludhiana. Affidavit about the checking by these officials, has also been submitted as Ex.RW1/A in which, they have mentioned that complainant was committing theft of energy, by direct supply from LT line by bye passing the meter, by removing kit kats. Also, they have mentioned that checking was made in presence of the consumer, but he reused to sign.


As complainant was committing theft of energy as per checking report Ex.R1, so opposite party issued provisional assessment order for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, was issued vide memo no.1944 dated 1.9.2008 for Rs.121838/-(Ex.R2) and also final assessment order for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, was issued vide memo no.2058 dated 30-10-2008(Ex.R3) for Rs.121838/-.

7- The Forum reaches at the conclusion that connection was checked vide LCR No.12/1233 dated 17.8.2008 Ex.R1 and affidavit by checking officials have been submitted about the checking (Ex.RW1/A). As complainant was committing theft of energy, so provisional assessment order for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, issued vide memo no.1944 dated 1.9.2008 for Rs.121838/-(Ex.R2) and also final assessment order for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, issued vide memo no.2058 dated 30-10-2008 for Rs.121838/-(Ex.R3), are legal and genuine and amount of Rs.121838/- against theft against checking report (Ex.R1) is chargeable. Hence, finding no merits in the complaint, it is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Copy of order be made available to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to record room.