DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 653/2016 Date of Institution : 05.10.2016 Date of Decision : 17.07.2017 Shamesher Singh aged 75 years son of Inder Singh resident of Manapindi, Dhanaula, Tehsil and District Barnala-148101 (Punjab). …Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Assistant Engineer, Dhanaula-I, District Barnala. …Opposite Party Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: Sh. DS Dhaliwal counsel for complainant. Sh. SK Kotia counsel for opposite party. Quorum.- 1. Shri S.K. Goel : President 2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member 3. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member ORDER (SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT): The complainant Shamesher Singh has filed the present complaint against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act). 2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant got the electricity connection at his residential house from the opposite party bearing Account No. L23MP360068F and has been paying the bills of consumption from time to time. It is alleged that the opposite party issued the bill dated 9.9.2016 by adding an amount of Rs. 33,965/- as arrears. Then the complainant approached the opposite party and made inquiries. However, the employees of the opposite party handed over a letter/notice dated 29.8.2016 and also obtained his signatures. In fact the opposite party played a game with him as he is an ordinary villager and did not understand the complications of the notice. Complainant has therefore, alleged that the impugned notice is totally illegal. The Audit Party cannot assess or revise the bills. It is mentioned in the letter/notice that the said amount was being charged on account of less assessed amount. Moreover, no opportunity was given of being heard. Thus, it was alleged that the demand raised by the opposite party was illegal and null and void. Hence present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.- 1) The opposite parties may be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs. 33,965/- as demanded by the opposite party. 2) To pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment. 3) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. 4) Any other relief which this Forum deems fit. 3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed the reply taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands, complaint is not maintainable, complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint, complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party. 4. It is further submitted that this complaint has been filed on wrong facts. In fact the premises of the complainant was inspected on 29.12.2015 and the electricity meter of the complainant was changed with another one. The old meter which was duly packed and sealed was checked in the ME Lab, Sangrur vide store challan No. 29 dated 29.12.2015 and vide checking report dated 29.12.2015 it was found that both the ME seals of the meter were fake and the body of the meter was tampered. It is further submitted that it is case of theft. Then the meter was packed with seal and it was handed over the Concerned JE for taking action under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 5. It is further submitted that on the basis of the report of the ME Lab a notice No. 178 of 3.2.2016 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act was served upon the complainant and complainant was required to deposit the amount of Rs. 28,195/- but the complainant failed to deposit the amount. It is further submitted that the complainant was also served upon an electricity supply for about the month of January 2016 of 877 units amounting to Rs. 6,109/- out of which the complainant deposited only Rs. 339/-. As such further amount of Rs. 5,770/- is still outstanding against the complainant. It is further submitted that the Audit Party audited the accounts of the opposite party and found the above said dues against the complainant. Therefore, as per report of the Audit Party a notice No. 1426 dated 29.8.2016 was duly served upon the complainant personally but the complainant instead of depositing the said amount filed the present complaint which is not maintainable. They have denied other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of receipt dated 21.7.2016 Ex.C-2, copy of letter dated 29.8.2016 Ex.C-3, copies of bills Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, copy of receipt dated 17.2.2017 Ex.C-6, copy of bill dated 16.3.2017 Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence. 7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Nitin Kumar SDO Ex.OP-1, copy of checking report Ex.OP-2, copy of notice dated 3.2.2016 Ex.OP-3, copy of half margin number 35 Ex.OP-4, copy of half margin number 38 Ex.OP-5, copy of notice dated 29.8.2016 Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. 9. At the outset the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that it is a case of theft of electricity and in this regard notice was already served upon the complainant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others Versus Anis Ahmad decided on 1st July 2013 in Appeal No. 5466 of 2012, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. 10. In order to support his contention the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of SDO Nitin Kumar Ex.OP-1 wherein he has specifically stated that a notice No. 178 dated 3.2.2016 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act was served upon the complainant requiring to deposit Rs. 28,195/-. Ex.OP-2 is the checking report pertaining to the complainant wherein it is mentioned that both the meter seals were fake and meter was also tampered and it was a case of theft of energy and he further mentioned that action be taken under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. On the basis of the said report show cause notice No. 178 dated 3.2.2016 was issued by the opposite party to the complainant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act i.e. theft of electricity. Ex.OP-4 is the Enforcement Checking report wherein it is mentioned that it is a case of theft of energy. 11. Further, the opposite party relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others Versus Anis Ahmad decided on 1st July 2013 in Appeal No. 5466 of 2012, wherein the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred which was conveyed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab on 17.1.2012 whereby the consideration of issues relating to theft of electricity and the orders passed by the competent authorities under different provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 for the recovery of the dues of electricity were ordered to be deferred. 12. In view of the above citation of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India, this Forum is not competent to try and decide the present complaint. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being not maintainable. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Authority to redress his grievance, if he desires so. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM: 17th Day of July 2017
(S.K. Goel) President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu) Member | 
