BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 73

Date of Institution : 18.3.2010

Date of Decision : 31.8.2010

Harish Kumar aged about 22 years son of Sh. Madan Lal, resident of Near Jail, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, PSEB, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, City Sub Division, PSEB, Faridkot.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Atul Gupta counsel for the complainant.

Sh. B.B. Khurana counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for charging the amount of Rs. 12,435/- through notice No. 3758 dated 17.2.2010 in respect of Account No. BR 73/567 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said notice and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties using the electric connection bearing Account No. F31BR730567W installed in the shop of the complainant in his name and has been using the same to earn his livelihood and paying the bills, so he is consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite parties served notice dated 17.2.2010 bearing No. 3758 alleging therein that the complainant had been making the theft of energy from the PVC crossing above the shop of the complainant whereas in fact the complainant had never made any theft of energy. He again received another notice bearing No. 3759 dated 17.2.2010 in which it was alleged that the meter was tampered whereas in fact the meter was not tampered by the complainant at all. The service of notice no. 3759 and 3758 are self contradictory as on one hand it has been alleged by the opposite parties that the complainant has tampered the meter and on the other hand it has been alleged that the complainant has been committing theft of energy by way of direct Kundi. It is further submitted by the complainant that no checking was ever made on 11.2.2010 in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative, rather as the father of the complainant is working in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd so under duress and pressure his signatures were obtained on number of blank printed proformas of the Board. No copy of any alleged checking report was ever supplied to the complainant before service of this notice nor even sent with the instant notice. The meter of the complainant was working properly and all the seals of the meter are intact. The shop of the complainant is on the main road of Nehru Shopping Complex, so he was even no occasion to commit theft of energy by way of direct Kundi as all the times people coming and going on this road and he can be caught at any time. On receipt of said notice the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 and inquired the amount so demanded by the opposite parties. He requested the opposite party No. 2 to supply the copy of alleged checking report but no copy of alleged checking report dated 11.2.2010 has ever been supplied to the complainant, rather they disconnected the connection of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.3.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant is suppressing the true facts from this Forum that his meter connection was checked by Sr. Xen Enforcement Staff PSEB, Moga on 11.2.2010 and the complainant was found withdrawing fraudulently the power by making a loop/kundi connection. The complainant was indulging in theft of energy by using artificial and unauthorized means and tampering the seals. The complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as the connection is being used for commercial purpose. On merits, it was alleged among other things that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as the connection is being used for commercial purpose. It is admitted that the opposite parties have issued notice No. 3758 dated 17.2.2010 for Rs. 12,435/- as charges for theft of energy being committed by the complainant by Kundi/loop connection. The connection of the complainant was checked by Sr. Xen Enforcement Surinder Pal Singh alongwith his operation staff on 11.2.2010 in the presence of complainant's father Sh. Madan Lal. On checking it was found that the complainant had been committing theft of energy by connecting a loop to the PVC passing through his shop and giving the direct supply to his vend/shop and to pub on the back side of his vend. The loop wire has been taken into custody. A videography on the spot has also been done by the opposite parties. A checking report No. 24/897 dated 11.2.2010 was prepared at the spot. He was also using load 3.338 Kws against the sanctioned load of 1.80 KW. A copy of checking report was also supplied to father of the complainant. The said amount has been charged as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, notice dated 17.2.2010 Ex.C-2, copy of complaint Ex.C-3, copy of receipt No. 158 Ex.C-4, copy of memo No. 3135 Ex.C-5, memo No. 3759 Ex.C-6 and evidence of the complainant was closed by order of this Forum vide order dated 25.6.2010.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Prit Pal Singh Ex.R-1, checking report dated 11.2.2010 Ex.R-2, copy of memo No. 3758 dated 17.2.2010 Ex.R-3, CD Ex.R-4, affidavit of Surinder Pal Singh Ex.R-5, affidavit of Lahora Singh Ex.R-6, confiscated PVC cable/wire Ex.R-7 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that action of the opposite parties for charging Rs. 12,435/- through notice dated 17.2.2010 Ex.C-2 in respect of Account number of the complainant allegedly on the ground of theft on checking dated 11.2.2010 Ex.R-2 is illegal and unlawful. Another notice dated 18.11.2009 Ex.C-5 is an example as to how the opposite parties is falsely involved the complainant in theft of energy cases, though the complaint for which has been separately filed. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that illegal means alleged against the complainant are tapping of energy by way of Kundi/loop connection. However, no length, colour etc. of the wire has been given. Alleged checking even was not made in the presence of the complainant.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that complainant has concealed the material facts from the Court. In fact, the electric connection of the complainant is of NRS category. The electricity through that connection was used by the complainant in the Ahata where so many persons were employed so he is not a consumer. Further, checking in this case was made in the presence of the father of the complainant and in this respect presence of the father of the complainant becomes clear from the allegations in para 5 of the written statement. Further, the proceedings of checking in this case was videographed and videography CD has been produced in the Forum as Ex.R-4. In addition, load was also found excess of the sanctioned load and copy of checking report was supplied to the father of the complainant.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant has however submitted that in para 5 of the complaint meter working has been alleged to be proper and there has not been any tampering of seals as has been specifically alleged but no reply to this allegation has been made.

11. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. This case is founded on the checking of electric connection of the complainant and observations as to theft of energy by way of Kundi connection made in the presence of the father of the complainant. In support of checking and observations of theft of energy reliance has been placed upon affidavit of Sr. Xen Enforcement, Moga Ex.R-5 and that of AE Enforcement-I Ludhiana besides DVD Ex.R-4. In regard to the presence of father of the complainant at the time of checking, para 5 of the complaint requires pointed reference where it is alleged by the complainant among other things that no checking was ever made on 11.2.2010 in his presence or in the presence of any of his representative, as father of the complainant is working in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and under duress and pressure his signatures were obtained on number of blank printed proformas of the Board. No copy of alleged checking report was ever supplied to the complainant before service of notice. From these allegations one thing is clear that checking report Ex.R-2 bears the signatures of his father. In view of the allegations in para No. 5 of the complaint it was for the complainant to prove his case by way of cogent evidence how the proforma of electricity Board find the place in the office of his father who is stated to be working in Oriental Insurance Company which has to do nothing with the business of the Electricity Board. But he has failed to prove this. He has even failed to prove how the duress and pressure was build upon his father to sign the blank proformas as alleged. Theft of energy in this case stands proved by proof of checking report by Senior Xen Enforcement, Moga Er. Surinder Pal Singh by way of his affidavit Ex.R-5. In his affidavit he has stated among other things that on 11.2.2010 during checking under DS City Sub Division, PSPC, Faridkot he alongwith his staff checked the premises of the complainant and found that latter was stealing electricity in his shop and in the adjoining premises by directly connecting a PVC to the PVC service of the Board passing over his shop. The connected load in the premises of the complainant at the time of the checking was 3.338 KW. From the checking report it is noted that sanctioned load of the NRS connection of the complainant is 1.80 KW. It is also noted that in earlier checking the connected load was found to be 2.838 KW as noted in checking report Ex.R-2. As already pointed out above checking was made by the Senior Xen Enforcement and his staff against whom no allegation of personal grudge or enmity is either alleged or proved. Wire which was being used for the purpose of tapping energy too was produced in the Forum though marked instead of exhibit for want of its seizure in a sealed pack cover. In this way, there is clinching evidence in support of the allegations of theft of energy by the complainant in stated manner. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant supported by his bald assertion by way of his own affidavit is meritless and as such the same is dismissed. In the peculiar set of circumstances, no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 31.8.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)