DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.525 of 16-11-2010 Decided on 24-01-2011
Jaswinder Singh, aged about 35 years son of Gurdev Singh, resident of Harraipur, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Distribution Sub Division, Goniana.
......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.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Opposite parties exparte.
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 SP electric connection bearing No.23/0035. He got memo No.985 dated 28.06.2010 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for the payment of Rs.1,03,128/- on the basis of checking report dated 12.06.2010. It is mentioned in the checking report that as per map Kundies were put on LT lines about 20 meters and running illegal motor of 10 BHP. Hence, this is case of theft of electricity. The complainant has further alleged that the opposite parties directly issued memo No.985 dated 28.06.2010 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act without providing any opportunity of being heard. The complainant appeared before designated authority i.e. Deputy Chief Engineer, Bathinda who reduced the amount to 6 months from 12 months on 26.07.2010 without giving any reason. The complainant has challenged the memo on various grounds that the checking dated 12.06.2010 was never conducted in the presence of the complainant; no signatures were ever obtained by him; he has neither committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly; the complainant was not given any hearing or chance to file objections by the opposite parties; no final order and explanation has been provided by the opposite parties under which the alleged amount of Rs.1,03,128/- has been raised; no final assessment order has been passed; the opposite parties have violated the mandatory statutory provisions; no evidence of theft was collected on the spot. The complainant earlier filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bathinda which was withdrawn on 11.11.2010. 2. The opposite parties despite service of notice, have failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, exparte proceedings are taken against the opposite parties. 3. The complainant has placed on file the evidence Ex.C-1 an affidavit of Jaswant Singh, Ex.C-2 an affidavit of Sadhu Singh, copies of electricity bills Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4, Ex.C-5 a copy of order dated 11.11.2010 Permanent Lok Adalat, Bathinda, Ex.C-6 his own affidavit, Ex.C-7 a copy of memo dated 28.06.2010 and Ex.C-8 a copy of order dated 26.07.2010 respectively. 4. Arguments led by the complainant heard and record alongwith written submissions perused. 5. The contention of the complainant that he has been issued memo No.985 dated 28.06.2010 raising a demand of Rs.1,03,128/- and Rs.16,000/- for compounding the offence. He submitted that the alleged checking dated 12.06.2010 was never conducted in his presence or in the presence of any of his representative. He has also not signed the checking report as no checking was conducted in his presence. The complainant appeared before the designated authority who reduced the amount to 6 months from 12 months on 26.07.2010, accordingly the memo No.985 dated 28.06.2010, No.7041/43 GC8-A was issued to the complainant. The opposite parties have raised the demand on the account of theft of electricity. The complainant has placed on file Ex.C-8 and the English version of order of designated authority Ex.C-8 is reproduced as under:- “On the basis of checking report No.A-5/1205 dated 12.06.2010, the Senior Executive Engineer/Flying Squad issued a provisional order of assessment vide notice No.985 dated 28.06.2010 from the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Goniana to the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.1,03,128/- for theft of electricity, as per map drawn, after putting the kundies on LT lines by using about 20 meters 3 core cable for running illegal motor of 10 BHP. The consumer was given an opportunity to file objection on 26.07.2010 at 11.00 a.m. regarding the above said notice. The Punjab State Electricity Board heard the consumer under regulation No.37.02 (c) (a) of Electricity Supply code 2007 on 26.07.2010.” The English rendering of the relevant extract is as follows:- “The complainant himself-Sh.Jaswinder Singh appeared and has told the designated authority that he was holder of electric connection bearing account No. SP 23/0035 for fishing but the PDCO was done to this connection as he failed to deposit some amount. Due to this PDCO, the complainant deposited the balance amount and R.C.O. fee with the opposite parties on 04.07.2007 vide receipt No.435/555 and it had been written by the concerned official that there was no due amount against the consumer on account of consumption charges. After deposting the R.C.O. fee, the complainant visited the opposite parties many times for getting his electricity reconnected and install the meter but the opposite parties did not listen to his request. Since, there was no arrangement of water to irrigate paddy, under compelled circumstances, the complainant started running the motor and on 12.06.2010, the Flying Squad made the case of theft on account of checking. So, he requested for reduce the penalty imposed on him and assured that he would not commit any theft in future. The concerned record of the consumer was summoned from the concerned office and the checking report No.A-5/1205 dated 12.06.2010 was also perused, wherein, it has been clearly written that this connection was running under SP category but now PDCO has been done. This was told Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, A.J.E. who was present on spot. As per map drawn an illegal motor was being run by consumer after putting kundies on LT lines by using about 20 meters 3 core cable and in this way consumer under Section 135 of electricity supply regulation Act, 2003 by taking direct supply was consuming illegal and dishonest abstraction/consumption of electricity, the consumer found to be using direct supply by illegal & dishonest abstraction/consumption of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Supply Act, 2003. Due to this, the checking officers because of prima facie case of theft under Section 37.2(a)(i) of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations 2007, necessary action was taken. In my opinion, if penalty for six months be charged instead of 12 months, the loss suffered by PSPCL on account of theft will be fulfilled. Accordingly, it will be appropriate if compensation for six months be charged from the consumer/applicant. After hearing prayer of the applicant and perusing the record, by using powers under Section 37.2(a)(i) of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations 2007 and Notification No. PSERC/Secy/36 dated 30-11-2007, it is decided that in this case, penalty be charged for 6 months instead of 12 months and this office be informed accordingly.” As mentioned above, the complainant has himself admitted that he was committing theft of electricity as no connection was installed in the premises of the complainant. Moreover, the relief of 6 months has already been given by signatory authority but no calculation sheet has been provided to the complainant regarding reduction the amount of fine from 12 months to 6 months. The complainant has neither supplied with the checking report nor he has been supplied with any calculation sheet. The complainant has already deposited the amount for the new electric connection but no new connection has been released to the complainant. 6. Hence, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 500/- as cost. The opposite parties are directed to install the new connection as per their rules and regulations. The amount which has been assessed by the designated authority is recoverable for 6 months, the opposite parties are directed to issue new demand notice after withdrawing the memo No.985 dated 28.06.2010 Ex.C-7. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 24-01-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
| 
