DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.465 of 12-10-2010 Decided on 16-02-2011
Rajinder Singh Dhillon, aged about 43 years, son of Sh. Gurdit Singh son of Sh.Ram Singh, r/o 305, Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, (erst-while Punjab State Electricity Board) through its M.D./Chairman. AEE/SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited.,(erst-while Punjab State Electricity Board) Cantt Sub Division, Bahtinda. ......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.Ish Kumar, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Sukhbir Singh, counsel for the 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 complainant is holding domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No.KN-38/694 (New Computerised No.B11KN380694P) in his name. On 06.09.2010, the officials of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant in routine checking and found no irregularity in the working of the meter and the same in OK condition and they obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank printed forms and blank papers. Thereafter, they started demanding Rs.10,000/- from the complainant, disconnected the electricity supply of the complainant and removed the meter on the pretext that they would get the meter checked from M.E.Lab. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued a provisional demand notice vide memo No.828 dated 07.09.2010 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, whereby, the demand of Rs.40,049/- has been raised on the basis of checking dated 06.09.2010 on the ground that the complainant has been controlling the electricity supply by tampering the inner portion, both the ME seals were tampered. The opposite parties directed the complainant to deposit the impugned amount and to pay Rs.9,000/- for compounding the offence of theft. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that he has neither indulged in theft of electricity nor tampered the meter or ME seals. At the time of checking, the checking staff has not pointed out any irregularity on the part of the complainant and they obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank printed forms and papers without explaining the contents thereof. The complainant has further alleged that a copy of alleged checking has neither supplied to the complainant nor it was pasted outside the house of the complainant nor it was sent through post. No opportunity of being heard has been provided to the complainant. The meter has neither got checked from the ME Lab nor from the Chief Electrical Inspector. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that on 06.09.2010, the officials of the opposite parties had checked the electricity meter of the complainant bearing A/c No.KN38/694 vide checking report No.11/1158 in the presence of the complainant and found that the ME seals of the meter were tampered with and the internal section of the meter were also tampered with to reduce the consumption of electricity and as such, it is a case of theft of energy. The opposite parties further pleaded that the complainant was found to be using load of 5.15 KW which is more than the connecting load of 3 KW. The checking report was prepared at the spot and signatures of the complainant were obtained on the checking report at the spot informing him about the commission of theft. Thereafter, vide letter No.828 dated 07.09.2010 a demand of Rs.40,049/- was raised from the complainant and asking him to deposit Rs.9,000/- to avoid criminal prosecution but the complainant did not deposit the said amount and they disconnected the connection of the complainant. A copy of checking report has been duly supplied to the complainant by the checking staff at the spot. 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 has submitted that he is holding domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No.KN-38/694. On 06.09.2010, the officials of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant on routine checking and found that no irregularity in the working of the meter and the meter was in OK condition. The officials of the opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank printed forms and papers. After obtaining the signatures, they demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and threatened him that if the complainant would not fulfill their demand, they would make a case of theft of electricity. The complainant refused to fulfill the illegal demand of visiting officers. The said officers of the opposite parties disconnected the electric supply and removed the meter on the pretext that they would check the same from ME Lab. The opposite parties issued a provisional order of assessment vide memo No.828 dated 07.09.2010 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for demand of Rs.40,049/- on the basis of alleged checking dated 06.09.2010 on the ground that the complainant has been controlling the electricity supply by tampering the inner portion and both the ME seals. The opposite parties further directed the complainant to deposit the impugned demand and to pay Rs.9,000/- for compounding the offence of theft. The complainant had challenged the said memo on various grounds that the complainant was neither indulged in theft of electricity nor he tampered with the meter or ME seals; the checking staff has not pointed out any irregularity on the part of the complainant and his signatures were obtained by undue influence without explaining the contents on the blank printed forms and papers. The alleged checking report has neither supplied to the complainant nor pasted it outside the house of the complainant nor the same was sent through post; no means of theft were collected from the spot; the opposite parties have not made the compliance of Section 135 of the Electricity Act; no opportunity of being heard was provided to the complainant; the criteria of demand raised, has not been mentioned on the demand notice and lastly, the meter has not been checked from ME Lab or from Chief Electrical Inspector. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and requested it to get deposited the part payment for restoration of his connection but the opposite parties have not allowed the complainant to make the payment of bill dated 27.08.2010 until the demanded amount paid by the complainant. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that they have neither obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank printed forms nor demanded Rs.10,000/-. The allegations levelled by the complainant are totally false. The Enforcement Staff of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited had conducted the checking on electricity meter of the complainant bearing No.KN-38/694 on 06.09.2010 in the presence of the complainant and it found that the complainant has been controlling the electricity supply by tampering the inner portion and both the ME seals and as such, it was a case of theft of energy. The complainant was also found to be using the load of 5.15KW which is more than the connected load of the complainant. The checking report was prepared at the spot and the complainant signed the checking report. The demand of Rs.40,049/- was raised from the complainant vide letter No.828 dated 07.09.2010 and asked him to deposit the amount of Rs.9,000/- to avoid the criminal prosecution but the complainant did not comply with letter No.828 dated 07.09.2010, electricity connection of his house was disconnected. 7. The complainant-Rajinder Singh has deposed in his affidavit Ex.C-1 that the complainant has filed the present complaint under compelled circumstances. The complainant has filed an application seeking interim relief for restoration of his connection and this Forum vide order dated 13.10.2010 has directed the opposite parties to restore the electricity connection within 10 days from the date of deposit of Rs.20,000/- alongwith reconnection charges but the opposite parties have not restored the connection even after the deposit of the ordered amount and the complainant has to file the complaint u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. 8. A perusal of Ex.R-2 which is the checking report shows that the sanctioned load of the complainant was 3 KW whereas he has been using connected load of 5.150 KW. A perusal of Ex.R-5 shows that the complainant is defaulter. No ME Lab report has been placed on file as the meter has never been checked in the ME Lab. The status of the meter is O. From the period of 06.09.2010 to 24.11.2010, there was no meter in the premises of the complainant. The old meter was removed on 06.09.2010 with status O. The MCO was got effected on 25.11.2010 Ex.R-8. The complainant has not been given any opportunity of being heard. No final order of assessment is issued. The opposite parties have sent a provisional order of assessment vide memo No.828 dated 07.09.2010 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for Rs.40,049/- on the basis of checking dated 06.09.2010 on account of theft of electricity. To corroborate the version of the opposite parties, cogent and convincing evidence is required to ascertain the cause of theft. 9. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.500/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.40,049/- and are at liberty to recover the defaulting amount if not paid till date. The opposite parties are also at liberty to charge the amount of the excess load and issue him fresh memo accordingly. The complainant has already deposited Rs.20,000/- with the order dated 13.10.2010 of this Forum and his connection has been duly restored. The amount paid by the complainant alongwith interest will be adjusted in his account against his pending bills if any and against excess load. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 16-02-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member | 
