Punjab State Electricity Board

[adv.sumit]

Harjit Singh son of Sh. Chand Singh, resident of 8, Golf Link Colony, Hambran Road, Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana.

(Complainant)



Vs.



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



2. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its S.D.O./ J.E. Sub Division Haibowal U-II, Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana.

(Opposite parties)






O R D E R


1. Electric connection of account no. W52JF080364 has been installed in the house, which complainant purchased four months ago from the previous owner. He since then, regularly has been paying user charges of the electric connection by consuming very few units around 200 units. During routine checking, employees of the opposite party checked the meter and consumption, but he never reported any defect in the meter. Despite it, in August 2008 employee of the opposite party came for delivery of the bills to house of the complainant and delivered the bill dated 31.8.2008 claiming sundry charges of Rs. 1,42,826/- in addition to consumption charges of Rs.550/-. Then approached the office of opposite party and was apprised that case of theft of electricity has been planted on him, qua which notice was also sent. But no notice was ever received from the opposite party. The bill is illegal, null and void as he never committed theft of energy, so, liable to be set aside.

2. Opposite party in reply claimed that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as there is no privity of contract to supply energy to him. Electric connection is installed in the name of Sh. Kulwant Singh and was never got transferred by the complainant in his name. Connection was checked on 14.7.2008 by Sh. Gurdial Singh A.E.E. along with his team and found the complainant committing theft of electricity by connecting direct wire from incoming side of the terminal block. Also he was found using connected load of 5.366Kws. against the sanctioned load of 1.97Kws. Hence, due to use of unauthorized load and committing theft of energy, account of the consumer was overhauled and provisional order of assessment was issued to deposit Rs.1,42,807/-. But he failed to deposit the same, so, final order of assessment dated 30.10.2008 was issued to Sh. Kulwant Singh. Consequently, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties 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 other material on record.

5. Complainant argued that no checking of the connection was done; neither copy of such inspection report was issued to him and on the basis of alleged checking report, no provisional assessment order was issued either to him or his predecessor in interest from whom had purchased the house. Simply amount was demanded by way of sundry charges in the regular bill dated 31.8.2008 Ex.C.7.

6. On the contrary, ld. counsel for the opposite party justified the demand on the ground that the complainant was apprehended committing theft of energy and using excessive load as well.

7. Ex.R.3 is copy of the checking report prepared by Sh. Gurdial Singh A.E.E. To prove the same, affidavit Ex.RW2/A of Sh. Gurdial Singh is filed. In addition to him, report is also signed by Sh. Kulbhushan Sharma AJE and Raghubir Singh ALM who were with Sh. Gurdial Singh AEE at the time of checking. No doubt, he has spoken about theft of energy and unauthorized load qua which prepared checking report. But is silent about presence of the complainant or his representative at the time of such checking. Neither there is any proof that copy of the checking report was supplied to the complainant or that it was supplied later on by registered post or otherwise. Whereas regulation no.45/97 mandates checking of the connection in the presence of consumer or his representative and supplying copy of the same to him. In checking report, there is no reference of presence of the complainant or his representative. It means complainant or his family members or representative were not present when checking report dated 14.7.2008, copy of which is Ex.R.3 was prepared.

8. Hon’ble, Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Charan Singh Vs. The Chairman PSEB and others reported in 2006 (1) CLT 659 also held that of theft need to be proved. In that case, the signatures of the complainant or his representative were missing from the checking report and collateral evidence i.e. the PVC wire allegedly used for stealing the electricity energy was also not seized. So, the report of the Meter Inspector which was not signed by the complainant was not accepted. Similar are the facts here. Checking report is not signed by the complainant, copy not given to him and alleged piece of wire through which kundi connection was made was also not seized. As checking was not done in the presence of the consumer or his representative nor collateral evidence of theft is produced, so, on this ground complaint deserve to be allowed and the demand quashed.

9. However, complainant has placed on record provisional assessment order Ex.C.8 issued to one Sukhwant Singh whereas electric connection as per bills Ex.C2 to C8 is in the name of Sh. Kulwant Singh. No provisional assessment order was issued to the complainant Sh. Kulwant Singh or to the complainant who was using energy as a beneficiary/consumer. But such aspect would be of no consequence, as checking in the instant case was in violation of regulation no.45/97 of the Punjab State Electricity Board.

10. On behalf of the opposite party contended that the complainant being not a consumer was not entitled to file the complaint. But after purchase of the building from previous owner in whose name connection stood, complainant became beneficiary/consumer so was entitled to file the complaint.

11. In view of the discussions, we allow this complaint and as a result quash the demand of sundry charges of Rs. 1,42,826/- raised against the complainant vide Ex.C7 dated 31.8.2008 and prohibit opposite party from realizing this amount from him. Amount, if any, under the orders of this Forum, stand deposited against this demand by the complainant, be refunded to him, within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. But this order shall not prevent opposite party from making any inspection or checking of connection of the complainant to know actual load of the energy being utilized by him and if found on such checking, using extra load, make demand from him in conformity with rules and regulations of the Punjab State Electricity Board. File be completed and consigned to record.

[adv.sumit]

Shankar Singh aged 95 years S/o Sh. Munsha Singh r/o Village & P.O. Sandra, Tehsil & Distt. Hoshiarpur.


........ Complainant

versus


1.

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

Punjab State Electricity Board, Shamchaurasi Sub Division, Hoshiarpur, through its Assistant Executive Engineer.


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



1.

The complainant namely Shankar 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 Electricity Account No. H54SP220009K. The said connection is being used by the complainant to run the business of flour mill to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment. The connected load is 15.16 KW. The complainant is regularly paying the electricity charges to the opposite parties, thus he is a consumer.
2.

It is the case of the complainant that he wanted to close the business, as such he made a request to OP No. 2 in the month of October, 2008 to remove the electric meter and to disconnect the electricity connection permanently. It is further the case of the complainant that the opposite parties removed the meter alongwith accessories. That signatures of the complainant were not taken at the time of removal of the meter.

3.

It is the allegation of the complainant that he was surprised to receive Memo No. 7060 dated 16.3.2009 from the OP No. 2 to the effect that the meter was checked in the M.E. Lab. It was found that on the cover of the meter there were some scratches and it was a case of theft of electricity. The complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 1,84,652/-. The demand of Rs. 1,84,652/- is stated to be illegal as the opposite parties while removing the meter and testing the same in the ME Laboratory, have not followed the mandatory procedure. That no prior notice was ever served upon the complainant. The complainant was not called in the ME Lab at the time of testing of the meter. The complainant visited the office of the OP NO.2 with the request to withdraw the Memo No. 7060 dated 16.3.2009, but of no consequences, hence this complaint.
4.

The opposite parties filed the joint reply. On merits, it is denied that the said connection is being used by the complainant to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment, as such the complaint is not maintainable. The replying opposite parties have followed the rules and regulations of the Electricity Board. It is further replied that Sukhdev Kaur, family member of the complainant gave her consent on behalf of the complainant for checking the meter in the ME Laboratory. The meter in question was sent vide challan No. 339 dated 14.1.2009 to the ME Lab. It was found that the meter was tampered with by applying powerful magnetic instrument to control the actual consumption and the mete cover had scratches on it, thus it is a case of theft of electricity.


The “Y” Phase of the meter was found burnt. It is further replied that the calculation sheet was prepared by applying LDHF formula. The complainant was found in arrears of Rs. 184650/- (i.e. SOP Rs. 167166/-, ED Rs. 17486/-). The demand of Rs.184652/- raised by the opposite parties through Memo No. 7060 dated 16.3.2009 is stated to be legal.
5.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, letter dated 16.3.2009 – Mark C-2, letter dated 24.4.2009 – Mark C-3, bill dated 15.1.2009 – Mark C-4, bill dated 17.12.2008 – Mark C-5, bill dated 15.10.2008 – Mark C-6, bill dated 13.9.2008 – Mark C-7, bill dated 15.1.2008 – Mark C-8, bill dated 16.7.2008 – Mark C-9, supplementary affidavit – Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence.
6.

In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Resham Singh – Ex. R-1, application by the complainant – Ex. R-2, PDCO dated 24.12.2008 – Ex. R-3, consent letter – Ex. R-4, challan – Ex.R-5, site report – Ex. R6, ME Lab report – Ex. R-7, calculation sheet – Ex.R-8, notice dated 16.3.2009 – Ex. R-9, extract of rules – Mark-A, reminder No. 24 – Ex. R-10 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.

Ex. R-1 is the affidavit of Er. Reshan Singh, AEE, PSEB Sub Division, Shamchurasi, Hoshiarpur, in support of the averments contained in the reply. Ex. R-4 is the consent given by Sukhdev Kaur, representative of the complainant to the effect that the meter be tested in the M.E. Lab, Hoshiarpur in her absence and the report of the M.E. Lab will be acceptable. The site checking report is Ex. R-6. Ex. R-8 is the calculation sheet. Ex. R-9 is the notice. R-7 is the M.E. Lab report. The contents of the report – Ex. R-7 are supported by the affidavit of Er. Resham Singh, Ex. R-1 (AEE, PSEB, Sub-Division, Shamchurasi), wherein he has deposed that the meter in question was tampered with by applying powerful magnetic instrument to control the actual consumption , hence it was a case of theft of energy. The “Y” phase of the mter was found burnt.
9.

Now, it is established on record that the contents of the report – Ex. R-7 had been supported by the affidavit Ex. R-1, referred to above. Admittedly, the complainant has not produced sufficient evidence to rebut the contents of the M.E. Lab report -Ex. R-7. The self-serving affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-1 is also not sufficient to rebut the site checking report – Ex. R-7.
10.

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]

Gurdev Singh son of Dalipa Ram, aged 65 years, village Aima Muglan, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.


........ Complainant

versus


1.

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

Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Asstt. Executive Engineer, Sub-Urban Sub Division, Garhshankar, Distt. Hoshiarpur.


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





1.

The complainant namely Gurdev 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 electricity connection No. MB-27/0211 NRS, having load of 2.95 KW, thus he is a consumer. The status of the meter had been shown “O”, meaning thereby, the complainant's meter was OK. That the bi-monthly average electricity bill of the complainant is less than 175 units since installation of the said electricity connection.
2.

It is the allegation of the complainant that he is surprised to receive bill-cum-show cause notice bearing memo No. 98 dated 27.1.2009, wherein it was stated that he was committing theft of electricity by using the direct wire i.e. by putting “Kundi”. The said allegation contained in Memo No. 98 dated 27.1.2009, referred to above, is stated to be wrong, as the complainant never committed the theft of energy. That his electricity connection was never checked by the opposite parties.
3.

It is further the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties issued another supplementary bill cum show cause notice No. 347 dated 6.3.2009 with the direction to deposit the amount of Rs. 28,937/-. The said demand of Rs. 28,937/- is stated to be illegal. The connection of the complainant was never checked by the officials of the opposite parties. That the complainant was never informed about any inspection or raid by the PSEB authorities.
4.

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 22.1.2009, the task force of the opposite parties consisting of Gurnek Singh, JE, Paramjit Singh, Budh Raj checked the connection of the complainant. It was found that the complainant had illegally fixed the direct wires (Kundi) in the naked joint of PVC passing nearby his house, and thereafter, had fixed the said wires in the plug of the domestic supply. The switch was found in On Position. The complainant was committing the theft of energy by bye-passing the meter. The copy of the site checking report dated 21.1.2009 was supplied to Sh. Gurpreet Singh, one of the members of the family of the complainant.


The assessment of electricity charges as per regulation No. 37 and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, CC No. 53/2006 and CC No. 58/2007 was made and the amount of Rs.16841/- was calculated. It is further replied that the said calculation was wrong as the connection of the complainant was under NRS tariff, as such, the actual amount of Rs. 37,359/- was found recoverable as per PSEB rules. The demand of Rs. 37,359/- is stated to be legal. The detail/calculation of the amount of Rs. 37,359/- has been given vide para No. 5 of the reply on merits.
5.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of Tarsem Lal – Ex. C-2/A, affidavit of Manjit Kaur – Ex. CW3/A, affidavit of Pavittar Singh – Ex. CW4/A, show cause notice – Ex. C-1, ration card – Ex. C-2, bill dated 21.12.2008 – Ex. C-3, notice dated 27.1.2009 – Ex. C-4, complaint copy in case Gurdev Singh vs. PSEB – Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence.
6.

In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Darshan Singh – Ex. R-1, supplementary affidavit of Darshan Singh – Ex. R-2, site checking report – Ex. R-3, notice dated 6.3.2009 – Mark R-4 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 OPs-Electricity Board has claimed that the connection of the complainant bearing A/c No. MB-27/0211 NRS was checked on 22.1.2009 by the task force headed by Gurnek Singh, J.E., and it was found that the complainant had illegally fixed the direct wires (Kundi) in the naked joint of PVC passing nearby his house, and thereafter, had fixed the said wires in the plug of the domestic supply. The switch was found in On Position, thus the complainant was committing the theft of energy by bye-passing the meter.
9.

To reach on the just conclusion to this case, it will be relevant to reproduce Regulation No. 134.5 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Electricity Supply Regulations – 2005 as under :

“134.5 Competent Authorities to carry out inspection, make assessment of compensation have been described in Para No.2 of the Schedule of COS (reproduced below) :-

2.0 AUTHORIZED OFFICERS: Following Officers of the Board shall be competent to carry out checking/inspection and testing of the electrical installation at the consumer's premises :

S.NO. CATEGORY OF Authorized to Enter and

CONNECTIONS inspect.

OPERATION OFFICERS:
1.

All Domestic/Non Residential Any Officer of operation

Connections/AP/SP & Medium/ wing not below the rank of

Large/Bulk Supply up to AE (within his jurisdiction)

500 KW Load.
2.

Large & Bulk supply beyond Any officer of operation

500 KW & Railway Traction. wing not below the rank of

Senior XEN (within his

jurisdiction) “

9.

Now, it is clear that as per said regulations, the officer of operation wing not below the rank of A.E., is competent to carry out checking/inspection. The Opposite Parties have claimed that in this case, the connection of the complainant was checked on 22.1.2009, by the task force headed by Gurnek Singh, J.E., it means that the checking has been done by the officer below the rank of A.E., i.e., by the J.E., Sh. Gurnek Singh, therefore it can be concluded that the OPs had violated the regulation no. 134.5, referred to above, which vitiates and violates the checking of the connection bearing No. MB-27/0211 NRS of the complainant.


It is, thus, held that the checking made qua Ex. R-3 is not as per regulation No. 134.5 of the Electricity Supply Regulations – 2005, therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service. Reliance placed on a decision by the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in MA No. 1201 of 2007 in/and F.A. No. 883 of 2007, PSEB vs. Hardev Singh, decided on 2.8.2007, and also a decision of Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in RBT No. 748/07 in FA No. 416/07, PSEB vs. Tripta Devi, decided on 11.12.2007.

10.

As a result of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the demand raised qua Supplementary Bill Cum Show Cause Notice No. 347 dated 6.3.2009 of Rs. 28,937/- – Ex. C-1 is quashed. Litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the opposite party 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 room.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[adv.sumit]

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

…..Complainant.

Versus



1- Punjab State Electricity ,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.

[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.

[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/-.

[adv.sumit]

Darshan Singh s/o Harnam Singh r/o village Kular, Tehsil Jagraon, Ludhiana.



….Complainant.

Versus



Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Sudhar, Distt. Ludhiana, through its Assistant Executive Engineer.

….Opposite party.






O R D E R







1- Briefly spelled, case of the complainant in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is that complainant is having an electric connection vide account no.BV15/0311 (NRS). He is using this connection for his diary work for maintenance of 13 buffalos with the help of two persons, to his livelihood by self employment. Vide bill dated 27.9.2008, opposite party claimed Rs.20,467/- on alleged ground of unauthorized use of electricity on the basis of some checking. In fact, as per Sales Regulation no.134.5(2.0), no checking by authorized officer was conducted in presence of the complainant. In case of refusal to sign the LCR, this fact must be recorded in LCR and copy thereof, required to be pasted on wall of premises of complainant. So, demand is illegal. Hence, prayed for quashing demand of Rs.20,467/-, refund of paid amount with 18% interest and Rs.15000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service.

2- In reply, opposite party took objection qua maintainability of complaint and that there is no deficiency on their part, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Electric connection in question with sanctioned load of 1.75 KW(NRS), was checked by Sh. Harjinder Singh JE-II on 14.7.2008 in presence of consumer. At that time, consumer was found stealing energy by connecting joint of PVC wire which leads to the meter through ceiling in backside of his house. Main switch of the consumer was put off and meter was stopped while electricity was in operation. Consumer refused to sign the report. As the consumer was found committing theft of energy, so demand of Rs.20,467/- was raised against him legally. No rule was violated by the Board. Rest of the allegations are denied and it is prayed that complaint be dismissed.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their respective counsels. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

4- Complainant argued that he received a bill dated 27.9.2008 for Rs.21,830/- which is payable by 13.10.2008 (Ex.C1) and amount of Rs.20,467/- has been included as sundry charges in the bill on account of unauthorized use of electricity charged because theft penalty has been imposed. Also agued that no checking was made in his presence and also no knowledge of conducting checking by any officials of the PSEB in his premises. Complainant further argued that Sh. Harjinder Singh JE-II, Sub Divn. Sudhar, PSEB,Distt. Ludhiana, has submitted an affidavit that he has checked the connection on 14.1.2008, but there is no report of this date enclosed herewith. Further argued that no affidavit has been submitted by checking official that the connection was checked on 14.7.2009. Therefore, this demand for Rs.20,467/- be quashed.

5- Opposite party argued that the connection of the complainant bearing account no.15/311 with sanctioned load of 1.75 KW(NRS) was checked by Sh. Harjinder Singh JE-II, vide LCR No.258/95 dt.14.7.2008 in presence of the consumer and it was found that consumer was committing theft of electricity by connecting the joint of PVC wire which leads to the meter through ceiling in the backside of his house. Checking officer also found that at the time of checking, main switch of the consumer was put off and meter of the consumer was stopped and electricity was in operation. Further argued that consumer was present, but he refused to sign the report.


Also argued that the affidavit of the checking officials Sh. Harjinder Singh, JE-II, Sub Divn. Sudhar, Distt. Ludhiana, has been submitted(Ex.RW2/A) in which, he has already mentioned that the consumer was committing theft of energy and having sanctioned load of 1.75 KW (NRS) and consumer refused to sign the checking report. Opposite party argued that as the complainant was committing theft for energy, therefore, memo no.1152 dated 18.7.2008 for Rs.20,467/- was issued to the complainant and given 15 days to deposit the same and later on, this amount was put as sundry charges in the bill dated 27.9.2008and total amount of bill Rs.21830/-.

6- From the above facts and figures, it is quite clear that connection of the complainant was checked by Sh. Harjinder Singh JE-II, Sub Divn. Sudhar, PSEB, Distt. Ludhiana, vide LCR no.258/95 dated 14.7.2008 in which he mentioned that complainant was indulging in committing theft of energy having sanctioned load of 1.75 KW and the consumer was present at the time of checking, but he refused to sign and was stealing energy by connecting PVC wire which leads to meter through ceiling in the backside of his house. At that time, checking official also reported that the main switch of the consumer was put off and meter of consumer was stopped and electricity was in operation.


As the consumer was indulging in theft of energy, then memo no.1152 dated 18.7.2008 for Rs.20,467/- was issued in which 15 days notice was given to deposit the amount, but later on amount was put as sundry charges of Rs.20,467/- in the bill dt. 27.9.2008 for Rs.21,830/-. While going through the record and discussions, as the checking was done vide LCR no.258/95 dated 14.7.2008 Ex.R2, but it is a matter of great surprise that no affidavit has been submitted by the checking official of this date i.e. 14.7.2008.Sh. Harjinder Singh JE-II, has submitted affidavit that he has checked the connection of complainant on 14.1.2008 and report dated 14.1.2008 is not available in the case.