LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Punjab State Electricity Board BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.
Complaint No: 174 of 2008
Instituted On: 10.12.2008
Date of Service: 29.12.2008
Decided On: 16.03.2009
Balvir Singh (aged 55 years) son of Balwant Singh son of Sunder Singh, resident of village: Sadda Singh Wala, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.
…..Complainant.
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, G.T.Road, Moga.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Dagru.
……Opposite Parties.
Complaint under section 12 of The
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.
Sh.J.S.Mallah, Member.
Present: Sh.Sukhdev Singh, Adv.counsel for the complainant.
Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv. counsel for the OPs-Board.
(J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)
Sh.Balvir Singh 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 Secretary, The Mall, Patiala (herein-after referred to as ‘Board’) and others-opposite parties directing them to quash the demand of Rs.19893/- raised vide bill dated 16.11.2008 and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental tension or any other relief to which this Forum may deem fit be granted.
2. Briefly stated, Sh.Balvir Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having NRS electric connection bearing account no.F27SW29/0102X installed at his premises with sanctioned load of 1.00 KW in the name of his father Balwant Singh, who has died and after his death, the complainant has been using the said connection and paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That about 25 years ago, the complainant alongwith his family constructed his house outside the village and also constructed two shops to establish complaint centre and to place the equipments of OPs-Board and they used the said premises for 25 years without paying any rent. That now complainant wants to vacate the said premises and under this grudge, the OPs-Board intentionally and willfully changed his tariff from DS to NRS. That on 16.11.2008, the complainant received a bill in which the OPs-Board raised a demand of Rs.20280/- as sundry charges without explaining any reason. That the complainant visited the office of the OPs-Board and requested them to explain the impugned amount, but to no effect. That no notice was ever issued to him before adding the same in his consumption bill. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.50000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.S.K.Dhir, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs-Board; that the complainant has concealed the true facts from the knowledge of this Forum and that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the Act as the electric connection in question has been installed in the name of Balwant Singh son of Sunder Singh and therefore, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board. In fact, on 15.09.2008 Sh.Sohan Singh, AE, Dagru Sub Divison of the OPs-Board checked the electric connection in question in the presence of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by fixing the direct wire from main line. The meter was not recording the consumption on the spot and electricity was running. The checking was made in the presence of the complainant, but he refused to sign the checking report. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, notice no. 3686 dated 23.09.2008 of provisional order of assessment for ‘unauthorized use of electricity’ was served upon the complainant to deposit Rs.19893/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and the impugned demand was raised by them, but the same was not deposited by the complainant. It was further averred that no cause of action arose to the complainant against OPs-Board. That the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover the same. On merits, the OPs-Board took up the same and similar plea as taken up by them in 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. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of bills Ex.A2 to Ex.A8, copy of application Ex.A9, affidavits of Davinder Kumar Ex.A10 and of Jagdev Singh Ex.A11 and closed his evidence.
5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Jaspreet Singh, Sr. XEN, affidavit Ex.R2 of Sohan Singh AE, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4 and closed their evidence.
6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Balvir Singh ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.K.Dhir ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.
7. Sh.S.K.Dhir ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that Balvir Singh complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board because the connection in question was issued in the name of Balwant Singh. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has no force. Admittedly, the electric connection in question was issued in the name of Balwant Singh father of the complainant who has died. After his death, the connection in question was used by the complainant being his son who used to pay regularly the consumption charges. This fact has not been controverted by the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we therefore, hold that Balvir Singh complainant being beneficiary is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board. Our this view stands fortified by our own Hon’ble State Commission, Pb. Chandigarh in Appeal No.218 of 2004 (Ashwani Kumar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors.) decided on 16.8.2005. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
“Suffice it to say that in case of Ashwani Kumar he is the owner in possession of the premises though the connection is in the name of Kartar Devi and is actually the consumer of the electricity and therefore, a ‘consumer’’
8. Sh.Sukhdev Singh, ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.19893/- raised vide bill dated 16.11.2008 by the OPs-Board is wrong and illegal. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. Admittedly, on 15.9.2008 Sh.Sohan Singh, AE, Dagru Sub Division of the OPs-Board checked the electric connection in question and found the complainant using the energy illegally i.e. by fixing the direct wire from main line. The meter was not recording the consumption on the spot and electricity was running. The checking was made in the presence of the complainant, but he refused to sign the checking report. The checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. He prepared the detailed report on the spot and on the basis of the said checking report, the demand of Rs.19893/- was raised from the complainant. To further corroborate the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the OPs-Board has produced affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Jaspreet Singh, Sr. XEN, affidavit Ex.R2 of Sohan Singh AE, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4.
9. Further, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not committing ‘theft of electricity’ except his own affidavit Ex.A1. There is no corroboration to his affidavit that he was not stealing the electricity by illegal means. Moreover, he has reason to give false affidavit in order to save himself from the consequences of being caught red handed while stealing the electricity by illegal means. Thus, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and we discard the same.
10. Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs.19893/- on account of ‘theft of energy’ as per the Electricity Act, 2003. The answer to this question is partly in negative. The OPs-Board has not strictly complied with the provisions of new Electricity Act, 2003. Admittedly, the electric connection installed at the premises of the complainant is NRS. Under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 in case of ‘theft of energy’, the NRS consumer at the most can be charged by taking the demand factor of 40%. Copy of checking report Ex.R3 issued by the OPs-Board as well as written reply and affidavit Ex.R1 show that they have charged the impugned amount by taking the demand factor as 100% instead of 40%. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned demand of Rs.19893/- raised vide bill dated 16.11.2008 from the complainant is liable to be set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board can charge the complainant for ‘theft of energy’ by taking the demand factor as 40% under the said Act.
11. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted and the demand of Rs.19893/- raised by the OPs-Board vide bill dated 16.11.2008 from the complainant is set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board is entitled to issue fresh notice/ demand on account of ‘theft of energy’ taking the demand factor as 40% and the complainant shall deposit the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
(Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:16.03.2009.
Submit Complaint..
