DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 328 of 22-07-2010

Decided on : 20 -12-2010

Manjinder Singh, aged about 45 years, S/o Nachattar Singh, R/o Mehna Chowk, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman

2. SDO/AEE Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division, Maur.

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sukhbir Singh, counsel for the opposite parties

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant got the electric connection bearing A/c No. B51BR410467A for running the petrol pump for earning his livelihood. He got memo No. 863 of dated 17-05-2007 for Rs. 58,500/- on the basis of checking report dated 15-05-2007 wherein it has been written that during the checking it was found that direct supply was running by putting a 200 meter wire from electricity account no MK17/504, so this was a case of theft. The complainant previously filed a civil suit at Talwandi Sabo which was later on withdrawn with the permission of court to file it in the proper court. The complainant filed the matter before SDM Talwandi Sabo and that was also withdrawn by him to file the matter in the competent court. The complainant assails the impugned memo on the ground that he never used the electricity by putting wire directly from connection No. MK17/504; alleged checking dated 15-05-2007 was never made; no signatures of the complainant or its employees ever obtained on the alleged checking report; the checking report was never sent to the complainant and no evidence regarding alleged theft was collected on the spot. The complainant applied the electric connection for petrol pump and deposited Rs. 20,250/- vide receipt No. 93626/135 dated 9-8-2006 and thereafter deposited Rs. 2,76,912/- vide receipt No. 264 of dated 28-03-2007, but the opposite parties did not issue the connection and under forced circumstances, the complainant was running petrol pump after installing a Generator Set. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to quash the impugned memo, refund the amount of Rs. 18,280/- deposited by the complainant on the direction of civil court and pay him compensation and cost.

2. The opposite parties filed written reply and took legal objection that complainant is not consumer. It has been submitted that on 15-05-2007, a checking was conducted by the officials of PSPCL in the premises of the complainant in the presence of representative of the complainant and during checking, it was found that complainant by laying 200 meter long wire was getting supply from connection No. MK17/05-4 and was found running 4.686 KW load unauthorisedly. A checking report was prepared at site but the representative of the complainant refused to sign the checking report and copy of the checking report was pasted at the site. Thereafter, memo No. 863 dated 17-05-2007 raising a demand of Rs. 58,000/- was issued to the complainant. The complainant filed civil suit and after withdrawing that suit, he preferred appeal before the SDM which too he had withdrawn and admitted that commercial purpose was involved. Now, the complainant has filed the present complaint on flimsy grounds. The memo is legal and valid in all respects and the opposite parties were well within their right to recover the impugned amount.

3. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings.

4. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that complainant had received memo No. 863 dated 17-05-2007 for Rs. 58,500/- on the basis of checking dated 15-05-2007 for using direct supply by laying 200 meters long wire from electricity account No. MK17/504. The complainant had earlier filed a civil suit dated 28-07-2007 which was withdrawn on 31-10-2009 with the permission of the court to file the case in the appropriate court. He again filed a matter in the court of SDM, Talwandi Sabo, which was also withdrawn on 09-06-2010. Hence, the complainant has filed complaint before this Forum. The complainant had applied for electric connection for running the petrol pump and deposited Rs. 20,250/- vide receipt No. 93626/135 dated 09-08-2006 and thereafter deposited Rs. 2,76,912/- vide receipt No. 264 dated 28-03-2007, but the opposite parties did not issue the electric connection and the complainant under forced circumstances running the petrol pump by installing generator set. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that opposite parties be directed to refund Rs. 18,280/- which were deposited with the opposite parties on 28-07-2007 vide receipt No. 257 on the direction of Civil court.

6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complaint is time barred as checking was done on 15-05-2007 and the complainant has filed this complaint in the month of July, 2007 and commercial purpose is involved in the present case, so complainant is not consumer. He further submitted that on 15-05-2007, checking was conducted by the officials of the opposite parties in the premises of the complainant in the presence of his representative and during checking it was found that complainant by laying 200 meters long wire was getting supply from connection No MK-17/-504 and was found running 4.686 KW load unauthorisedly. Checking report was prepared at site but the representative of the complainant refused to sign the checking report and copy of the same was pasted at the site. Thereafter memo No. 863 dated 17-05-2007 for raising a demand of Rs. 58,500/- was issued to the complainant. The learned counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that earlier the complainant had filed civil suit and after withdrawing the same, he preferred appeal before SDM, Talwandi Sabo which was also withdrawn, which shows that complainant himself is delaying the matter.

7. The opposite parties have raised legal objection that complaint is time barred. This objection is not tenable because, as discussed above, complainant had filed civil suit challenging the checking report dated 15-05-2007, and thereafter preferred appeal before SDM, Talwandi Sabo, on the same cause of action, which was withdrawn by him on 09-06-2010. Thus, it shows a continuous cause of action and as such, the present complaint is not time barred. In this regard, the support can be taken from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled 2000(1) CPC 259 Lata Construction and Others Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and another Another objection of the opposite parties is that the commercial purpose is involved in the case, as such, complainant is not consumer. This objection is also without any base as the complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint that he is running petrol pump for earning his livelihood. The support can be taken from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titeld 2009(III) CPJ 5 (SC) Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. & Another Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., Further the opposite parties have pleaded that earlier complainant had filed civil suit and thereafter preferred appeal before SDM, Talwandi Sabo, hence this complaint is not maintainable. This contention of the opposite parties is devoid of merit as the earlier complaints filed by him were not decided on merits and he had withdrawn the same. Thus, he can avail the remedy under the 'Act'.

8. A perusal of checking report dated 15-05-2007 Ex. R-2 shows that complainant by laying 200 meters long wire was getting supply from electric connection No. MK-17/504 and was found running 4.686 KW load unauthorisedly. This checking report has not been signed by the complainant or any of his representative as the remarks has been endorsed on the checking report that representative of the complainant had refused to sign the checking report. The name of the representative of the complainant has not been mentioned on the checking report. The opposite parties have pleaded that since the representative of the complainant refused to sign the checking report, its copy was pasted at the site whereas a perusal of checking report reveals that it is no where mentioned in it that a copy of checking report was pasted at site. The opposite parties levelled the allegation of theft on the complainant by saying that he was using electricity unauthorisedly by laying 200 meters long wire. No photography or videography of the site has been done to prove this allegation. Moreover, the wire, if any recovered from the site, was not produced before this Forum to show that actually theft was being committed by the complainant. The opposite parties have failed to register FIR against the complainant. Theft of energy is a criminal charge and a strict proof is required to establish the offence as is required before a Criminal Court. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh, in the case titled Charan Singh Vs. P.S.E.B. (Chairman) and Another 2006(1)( J.R.C.) 206 wherein it has been held that :-

   “Electricity theft – Electricity Board cannot raise the demand on the bare report of Meter Inspector which has not even been signed by the complainant – PVC wire which is stated to have been used for by-passing the electricity meter was also not taken into possession by the raiding party – Demand notice quashed.”

9. The complainant has prayed for the refund of the amount of Rs. 18,280/- which he has deposited with the opposite parties on the direction of civil court. The complainant has deposited the aforesaid amount on the direction of civil court and now this Forum cannot direct the opposite parties for refund of the same. If the complainant wants any relief in this regard, he can approach the appropriate authority.

   From the above discussion, it is very much clear that theft being a criminal offence has to be proved by convincing evidence which is not available in the case in hand.

10. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation. Hence, we hereby quash the memo No. 863 dated 17-05-2007 issued by the opposite parties raising a demand of Rs. 58,500/- from the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to issue electric connection to the complainant against the aforesaid amount which he had already deposited, if not yet issued.

    With utmost regard and humility to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts.

    The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned.

Pronounced :

20-12-2010 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member