DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB. 

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/448

Date of Institution : 20.06.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 16.08.2022

Smt. Nirmal Mehra wife of Sh. Jia Lal Mehra, aged 79 years resident of 44, Mall Road, Amritsar.                                    …Complainant

Versus

 

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through the SDO, Civil Lines Sub Division, O/s Hall Gate, Amritsar.   

                 …Opposite Party

 

Complaint U/S 11 & 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

 

Present: Sh. Saurabh Sharma Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. S.S. Batra Adv counsel for the opposite party.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the husband of the complainant had obtained an electric connection bearing account No. 3002913631 (DS Tariff) from the opposite party and after his death the present complainant being her wife is using the above said connection and regularly paying the consumption charges as per the bills. It is further alleged that the complainant was shocked and surprised when she received a bill dated 7.5.2018 for an amount of Rs. 59,800/- vide which an amount of Rs. 54,573/- was added under the head Arrears Previous years, Rs. 917/- was added under the head Arrears Current Years, an amount of Rs. 3,450/- was adjusted in this bill apart from Rs. 796/- under the head current consumption charges. The complainant brought the above said facts to the knowledge of the opposite party but they did not bother to hear her. The complainant also requested the opposite party to provide the details of the amount but they refused to do so. The opposite party threatened the complainant to pay the full bill otherwise the connection will be disconnected. Due to which the complainant suffered mental torture, agony and harassment and the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

i) The opposite party may be directed to withdraw the impugned bill dated 7.5.2018 of Rs. 59,800/- or in alternative it may be set aside being wrong, illegal and against the actual consumption. The opposite party further directed to issue the fresh bill on the basis of current consumption charges.

ii) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability because the arrears added in the bill is the amount of theft of energy + actual consumption charges, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, complainant not come with clean hands, concealment of material facts etc. It is further alleged that a demand of Rs. 87,456/- was raised from the consumer by the opposite party vide memo No. 3207 dated 5.9.2008 U/s 126 of Electricity Act, but instead of filing any objection against the provisional notice U/s 126 of Electricity Act, the complainant filed a case before the Court of SDM, who asked the opposite party to issue the final notice, whereas under the circular vide No. 34/06, when a provisional notice U/s 126 of Electricity Act has been issued to the consumer & who failed to file objections within the period of 7 days against the said notice, then said notice has become final. It is further alleged that ½ amount had been deposited by the consumer out of Rs. 87,456/- & remaining is still due towards the consumer, which is continuously appearing the energy bill of the consumer from the last two years or more, so an amount of Rs. 43,728/- is remaining amount as stated above and Rs. 16,072/- is related to current bill i.e. 3.2.2017 to 7.5.2018 in total Rs. 59,800/-. It is alleged that the consumer has deposited only Rs. 900/- on 1.4.2014 & Rs. 40,000/- on 2.3.2017 against the current consumption charges & except this no amount has been paid by the consumer to the opposite party. On merits, the opposite party denied the case of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. The complainant has filed rejoinder against the written version filed by the opposite party which is nothing but word to word repetition of the averments made by the complainant in her complaint. 

5. In support of her complaint, the complainant at the time of filing the present complaint filed documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and self attested affidavit of complainant Ex.C-4. 

6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party at the time of filing written version filed affidavit of Amit Deepak AEE Ex.O.P1/A alongwith documents Ex.O.P1 to Ex.O.P25. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. Written arguments filed by the complainant. 

8. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the present complainant after the death of her husband being her wife is using the above said connection and regularly paying the consumption charges as per the bills. It is further argued that the complainant was shocked and surprised when she received a bill dated 7.5.2018 for an amount of Rs. 59,800/- Ex.C-2 vide which an amount of Rs. 54,573/- was added under the head Arrears Previous years, Rs. 917/- was added under the head Arrears Current Years, an amount of Rs. 3,450/- was adjusted in this bill apart from Rs. 796/- under the head current consumption charges. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that the complainant brought the above said facts to the knowledge of the opposite party but they did not bother to hear her and the opposite party threatened the complainant to pay the full bill otherwise the connection will be disconnected which is illegal and against the law. 

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party argued that the present complaint is not maintainable because the arrears added in the bill is the amount of theft of energy + actual consumption charges and this Forum/Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. It is further argued that a demand of Rs. 87,456/- was raised from the consumer by the opposite party vide memo No. 3207 dated 5.9.2008 Ex.O.P5 U/s 126 of Electricity Act, but instead of filing any objection against the provisional notice U/s 126 of Electricity Act, the complainant filed a case before the Court of SDM, who asked the opposite party to issue the final notice, whereas under the circular No. 34/06, when a provisional notice U/s 126 of Electricity Act has been issued to the consumer & who failed to file objections within the period of 7 days against the said notice then said notice has become final order. It is further argued that ½ amount had been deposited by the consumer out of Rs. 87,456/- & remaining is still due towards the consumer, which is continuously appearing in the energy bill of the consumer from the last two years or more, so an amount of Rs. 43,728/- is remaining amount as stated above and Rs. 16,072/- is related to current bill i.e. 3.2.2017 to 7.5.2018 in total Rs. 59,800/-. It is also argued that the consumer has deposited only Rs. 900/- on 1.4.2014 & Rs. 40,000/- on 2.3.2017 against the current consumption charges & except this no amount has been paid by the consumer to the opposite party. Ld. Counsel for opposite party also argued that in Ex.O.P5 which is notice of provisional order of assessment U/s 126 of Electricity Act, vide which it is mentioned that “despite given repeated notices to the consumer, the consumer failed to appear in the ME Lab and on dated 1.9.2008 the meter in question was checked in the ME Lab and found that the ME seals were tempered”. Ld. Counsel for opposite party also argued that it is a case of unauthorized use of electricity/theft of electricity energy and accordingly a notice No. 3207 dated 5/9/2008 U/s 126 of Electricity Act was issued in favour of husband of the complainant, as such the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.

10. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Versus Anis Ahmad decided on 1st July, 2013 in Appeal No. 5466 of 2012, in which it is held that “the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum”. It is further held that A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. Further, from a bare reading of Section 126 and Sections 135 to 140, it is clear that while acts of "unauthorized use of electricity" attracts civil consequence of penal charge of electricity, twice the rate of electricity, for which assessment is made by assessing officer under Section 126; the very same acts of "unauthorized use of electricity", constitute "offences" under Section 135 to 140 for which sentence and fine has been prescribed. The acts of indulgence in "unauthorized use of electricity" by a person, as defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below Section 126 of the Electricity Act,2003 neither has any relationship with "unfair trade practice" or "restrictive trade practice" or "deficiency in service" nor does it amounts to hazardous services by the licensee. Such acts of "unauthorized use of electricity" has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the price. Therefore, acts of person in indulging in 'unauthorized use of electricity', do not fall within the meaning of "complaint", as we have noticed above and, therefore, the "complaint" against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. Therefore, it is proved on the file that the premises of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite party and the complainant was found stealing electricity energy by tampering the ME Seals of the meter as per Ex.O.P5.

11. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the present complaint is not maintainable and has no merits, therefore the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        16th Day of August, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member