DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.382 of 25-08-2010 Decided on 05-01-2011
Kamaljeet Singh son of Sh.Malkit Singh, resident of village Bhagta Bhai, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its M.D./Chaiman. A.E.E./S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Lachhman Kumar, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.R.D.Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the electric connection bearing A/c No.B92BV250297X was installed in the name of Malkit Singh father of the complainant. The father of the complainant-Malkit Singh sold the house in which the connection had been installed. The complainant started constructing his residential house in his fields in the month of April, 2010. The complainant applied for fresh electric connection of 3 KW in his name for his new house on 10.05.2010 and deposited the security of Rs.3,560/- with the opposite parties on their demand for issuance of fresh connection vide receipt No.124 dated 10.05.2010 and has completed all the requisite formalities as required by the opposite parties. In the mid of June, 2010, the opposite parties have issued/released poles and cable for the release of new connection to the complainant, since the electricity meter was not available with the opposite parties. So, they installed the old meter in the new premises by removing the same from the old premises pertaining to the father of the complainant on the pretext that the same would be replaced with new one whenever the same would be available with them. The opposite parties started giving supply of electricity to the new premises of the complainant through the old meter. On 30.06.2010, the official of the opposite parties visited the newly constructed house of the complainant where some respectable persons of the village were present and checked the connection of the complainant and on seeing the old meter, the official of the opposite parties inquired about that from the complainant, he narrated the whole facts to the official. He asked the complainant to give his signatures on some blank printed forms in the presence of those persons. The opposite parties have issued a provisional demand notice u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bearing memo No.551 dated 05.07.2010, whereby, a demand of Rs. 1,06,856/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking dated 30.06.2010. The complainant visited the office of the opposite parties but they have passed a final order u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bearing memo No.729 dated 28.07.2010 for Rs.1,06,856/-. The complainant has challenged the impugned demand on various grounds that neither the checking report was prepared at the site nor any copy thereof has been pasted outside the premises of the complainant nor sent to the complainant. The signatures of the complainant were obtained on some blank printed forms in the presence of respectable persons of the village without disclosing the contents of those papers to the complainant. The opposite parties have themselves released the supply of electricity to the complainant by installing the old meter in the mid of June, 2010, whereas, the alleged checking was conducted on 30.06.2010. The new meter has been installed by the opposite parties after few days of alleged checking by the officials of the opposite parties and connection/account No.BB-66/1687 has been allotted. The complainant never indulged in theft of electricity nor has taken direct supply from the site. The complainant has started the construction in the month of April, 2010 and applied the connection on 10.05.2010 and deposited the requisite fee/security with the opposite parties but they have not installed the new meter rather gave supply from the old meter. The provisional demand notice has been issued u/s 135 of the Electricity Act but the final order has been issued u/s 126 of the Electricity Act. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the father of the complainant did not pay the bills regularly. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant had applied for getting the connection on 10.05.2010 and deposited a sum of Rs.3,560/-. Till the date of checking and depositing of the security, the connection was not released. The old meter was not installed in the new premises of the complainant by the opposite parties. The question of non-availability of the new meter with the opposite parties does not arise. The opposite parties did not tell the complainant any time that the old meter would be replaced with new one. Till the date of checking, the new connection was not sanctioned. So, there was no question of installing the old meter by the officials of the opposite parties. The premises of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite parties i.e. Senior XEN Enforcement-1, A.A.E. Enforcement and at the time of checking, it was found that the complainant was using electricity directly and he was using load of 3.218 KW. This checking was made in the presence of the complainant who has duly received and signed it. He did not raise any objections at the time of checking. He was committing theft of electricity. The complainant with malafide intention hanged the old meter in the new premises only to be fool to the officials of the opposite parties. Accordingly, memo No.551 dated 05.07.2010 of provisional assessment order has been issued to the complainant. The complainant never visited the opposite parties with any respectable person of the village. The complainant did not raise any objection against the provisional assessment order. So, the final order of assessment No.729 dated 28.07.2010 was issued to the complainant. The complainant had applied the connection and deposited the security but the connection was not released to him till the date of checking. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The complainant-Kamaljeet Singh had applied for an electric connection for his newly constructed house on 10.05.2010 and deposited the security of Rs.3,560/- for 3KW connection vide receipt No.124 dated 10.05.2010. The premises of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 30.06.2010 and have issued a provisional order of assessment u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bearing memo No.551 dated 05.07.2010, whereby a demand of Rs.1,06,856/- has been raised on the basis of checking dated 30.06.2010 for using electricity directly. 6. The complainant has submitted that he had never committed any theft of electricity. He had applied for new connection and the opposite parties have themselves released the supply of electricity to the complainant by installing the old meter which was earlier installed in the premises of his father-Malkit Singh in the mid of June, 2010 and conducted the checking on 30.06.2010. After few days of the date of checking, the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties. Thereafter, the connection/account No.BB-66/1687 has been allotted to the complainant. The complainant contested that neither the checking report was prepared on the spot nor any copy of checking report has been pasted outside his premises nor the same has been sent to him by Regd. post which are mandatory under the provisions of the opposite parties. The signatures of the complainant were obtained on the blank printed forms in the presence of respectable persons of the village. This contention of the complainant is confirmed as this checking report was signed by two officials of the opposite parties but the affidavits of these two officials have not placed on file to show that the checking was done in their presence. A perusal of checking report dated 30.06.2010 Ex.R-3 shows that it is duly signed by the complainant. A further perusal of checking report shows that the complainant was using electricity directly and the connected load was of 3.218 KW. It was also written on the checking report that the complainant-Kamaljeet Singh son of Malkit Singh has deposited Rs.3,560/- as security vide receipt No.BA-16N 124/437 dated 10.05.2010. The consumer who was present at the site, told the opposite parties that the old meter A/c No.RV-25/297 bearing Serial No.1089876, reading 07174 is of his father and placed on wall of the complainant. Moreover, the opposite parties themselves admitted that the complainant has deposited the security of Rs.3,560/- on 10.05.2010 for new connection. Thereafter, they have conducted the checking on 30.06.2010 and sent a provisional order of assessment dated 05.07.2010 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for using the direct supply by the complainant and then, the final order of assessment u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been sent to the complainant on 28.07.2010. 7. The opposite parties have issued SCO No.34771/10.05.2010 which shows that the SCO was issued on 10.05.2010. The bill was issued in the name of the father of the complainant on 09.07.2010 Ex.C-4 which has been paid by the father of the complainant on 30.07.2010 vide Ex.C-5. The complainant had applied for new connection for his newly constructed house in the fields and the electric connection of Malkit Singh i.e. father of the complainant was installed in the old house which has already been sold by the father of the complainant and no bill is pending against him as alleged by the opposite parties. However, the bill pretaining the father of the complainant has no connection with the new connection of the complainant. Even if any arrears are pending, the complainant is not liable to pay those bills/arrears. The complainant has deposited the security on 10.05.2010 of Rs.3,560/- with the opposite parties and approximately after the lapse of one month, the checking was conducted in his premises which has not been done in the presence of the complainant as this checking report bears the signatures of two officials of the opposite parties but no affidavits of these two officials have been placed of file to confirm the checking. Hence, this checking report is false. Therefore, the demand issued by the opposite parties is also raised on frivolous grounds. The opposite parties have not released the connection to the complainant even after depositing the security by him till 30.06.2010 which is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 8. Hence, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation and demand of Rs.1,06,856/- vide memo No.729 dated 28.07.2010 is hereby quashed. The complainant has deposited Rs.35,000/- with the orders of the Forum dated 31.08.2010, the receipt No.510 dated 09.09.2010 of this amount has been placed on the file as Annexure R-6. The opposite parties are directed to refund this amount with interest @ 9 % P.A. This amount will carry interest till its realization. If any amount is pending against the father of the complainant, the opposite parties are free to recover that from Malkit Singh with lawful means. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 05.01.2011 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
