DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.136 of 28-03-2011 Decided on 27-06-2011
Paramjit Singh, aged 38 years, son of Sh. Gurtej Singh (Zaildar), Resident of Maur Khurd, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary. AEE/SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Maur, Distt. Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Pardeep Kumar, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.J.D.Nayyar, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
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 an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding domestic electricity connection bearing account No.BP81/296 A. The complainant got a memo No.213 dated 16.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.58,018/- from the opposite parties on the basis that the premises of the complainant were checked by the staff of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 15.02.2011 and it was found that he was committing theft of electricity by making joint from the service line. The complainant has alleged that he has never indulged in any theft of electricity. The meter installed at the premises of the complainant was not checked by any competent person or authority in the presence of the complainant and no legal procedure was followed for the said purpose and the said checking report has been prepared in the office of the opposite parties. The complainant has many times requested the opposite parties to withdraw the said demand but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant rather threatened him to disconnect his electricity connection. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the electricity meter of the complainant had been checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 15.02.2011 and on checking, it had been found that the connection holder by way of putting a joint in the main service line to the meter had put the entire load on the same, by way of by-passing th meter and was consuming the electricity in an authorized manner. It was also found that the connection holder having been consuming the connected load of 6.22 kw as against the sanctioned load of 0.92 kw. The checking officials made the checking report at the spot. The said checking report was signed by one Sanjeev who was present at the spot and also by the complainant himself in token of its correctness and on account of their having receiving the checking report. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act and CC No.53/2006 and Regulation No.37 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 of the opposite parties, the complainant had been issued a provisional order of assessment No.213 dated 16.02.2010 for Rs.58,018/- which had been calculated as per rules (i.e. L x D x H x F % = Units x Tariff x 2 x 12 months) as the recoverable amount and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.21,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. The complainant had been further asked that in case, he did not agree with this provisional order, he could file objections if any, within 15 days from the date of notice. Since, the complainant has neither deposited the said amount nor filed any objection, as such, the demand made vide provisional order of assessment has become final. The opposite parties have also taken the support of law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (DB) in case titled Kamal Kumar Vs. PSEB, 2009 (II) RCR 815. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The premises of the complainant were checked by the officials of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 15.02.2011 and found that the complainant was committing theft of electricity by making joint from the service line. The opposite parties raised a demand through memo No.213 dated 16.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.58,018/-. The complainant has challenged this memo on various grounds. One of the ground is that the meter was not checked by any competent/authority whereas the connection of the complainant was duly checked by the officials of the opposite parties and it had been found that the connection holder by way of putting a joint in the main service line to the meter had put the entire load on the same, by way of by-passing the meter and was consuming the electricity in an authorized manner. It was also found during checking that the complainant was using the connection load 6.22 kw as against the sanctioned load of 0.92 kw. The checking report was made at the spot and it was signed by Sanjeev who was present at the spot and also by the complainant himself and have also received the copy of the said checking report. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act and CC No.53/2006 and Regulation No.37 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 of the opposite parties, the complainant had been issued a provisional order of assessment No.213 dated 16.02.2010 for Rs.58,018/- which had been calculated as per rules (i.e. L x D x H x F % = Units x Tariff x 2 x 12 months). The opposite parties have also informed vide this memo that FIR has been recorded against the complainant on the basis of theft u/s 135 of the Electricity Act and in case, he wanted, he could deposit another amount of Rs.21,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings or was asked, if he was not satisfied with the provisional order of assessment, he could file objections if any, within 15 days from the date of notice before SE/Dy CE DS Circle, Bathinda. The complainant had not filed objections, so the demand made by provisional order of assessment had become final. The Checking Report Ex.R-4 shows that the complainant had been using connected load of 6.22 kw whereas the sanctioned load was 0.92 kw. The Checking Report is supported by the affidavits of the officials who have checked the connection of the complainant. Hence, the meter of the complainant had been checked by authorized persons. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that the meter was not checked by any competent authority is not tenable. The opposite parties have also taken the wire into their possession at the spot which has been duly produced in this Forum vide Ex.R-5. The complainant was committing theft of energy by putting joint from the service line of the meter and had put entire load of the same by-passing the meter. During checking, it was also found that the complainant was having connected load of 6.22 kw against the sanctioned load of 0.92 kw. The Checking Report has been signed by one Sanjeev as well as the complainant himself. A memo which had been issued to the complainant, is calculated as per LxDxHxF formula. Hence, this is clear cut case of theft of electricity. The support can be sought from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (DB) in the case 2009 (II) RCR 815 titled Kamal Kumar Vs. PSEB wherein it has been held that “Menace of kundi connections as it is generally known i.e. Drawing electricity from the main line by putting wires without any authority or permission and without any meter is quite prevalent and is being put to use by people without any fear. The honest consumers of electricity have to suffer for no fault of theirs due to low voltage, causing harm to electrical and electronic devices and appliances, frequent tripping and high electricity charges due to increased transmission losses because of such thefts. People like the petitioner misuse the leniency shown by the electricity officials and go to the extent of stealing electricity. This tendency needs to be curbed with a firm hand to discourage such like activities and tendencies gaining ground in the society. Court cannot be a party to illegal activities of people like the petitioner; rather the departmental officials deserve a work of appreciation and encouragement for taking steps to weed out prevalent illegal activities and tendencies of such like elements of the society. Strict action needs to be taken and no leniency deserves to be shown in such cases”. The complainant has been involved in theft of electricity, hence he is not entitled for any relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.
Pronounced 27.06.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
