State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Passo Wife Of Balbir Singh vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity ... on 16 December, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.460 of 2005
Date of institution : 21.3.2005
Date of decision : 16.12.2010
Passo wife of Balbir Singh, resident of House No.118, Ward No.2, Ahmedgarh,
District Sangrur.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala.
2. Executive Engineer, DS Circle Sub Urban, Punjab State Electricity Board,
Ludhiana.
3. Executive Engineer, DS Division, Ahmedgarh, Punjab State Electricity
Board, Ahmedgarh.
4. Sub Divisional Engineer, City Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board,
Ahmedgarh.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 20.1.2005 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : Ms. Rajwinder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate.
For the respondents : Shri Varun Baanth, Advocate for Shri Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The version of the appellant was that she had received the bill in the month of September 2002 for an amount of Rs.8,313/- in which Rs.7,490/- were shown as sundry charges. If the amount was not paid within the stipulated date then the First Appeal No.460 of 2005. 2 appellant was to make the payment of Rs.9,140/-. The appellant protested against the illegal demand but she had not received any reply from the respondents.
2. It was further pleaded that in the month of November 2002 she received the bill for an amount of Rs.9,415/- which she could not pay. Then she received the bill in the month of January 2003 for Rs.11,390/-. She again could not pay. Then she received the bill in March 2003 for Rs.13,271/-. The appellant was demanding the reply from the respondents for the sundry charges but since she did not receive the reply, therefore, she did not make the payment.
3. It was further pleaded that on 10.4.2003 the officials of the respondents came to her house for disconnecting the electric connection. Under the compelling circumstances the appellant applied to the respondents for payment of this amount in installments and the respondents permitted the appellant to deposit this amount in five installments. She deposited the installments under protest. She again lodged the complaint about the illegal demand on 16.5.2003 but she did not receive any reply. Thereafter she received the reply dated 23.6.2003 on 29.7.2003 by registered letter.
4. It was further pleaded that the respondents allege that the appellant was committing theft of electric energy when her electric meter was checked by the officials of the respondents on 4.8.2001. She was also found using excess load to the tune of 3.42 K.W. against the sanctioned load of 2.86 KW and the amount of Rs.7,490/- was demanded for that reason. The appellant was not committing theft of electric energy. Hence the complaint for recovery of Rs.8,317/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
5. The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that the respondents had issued the bill in September 2002 for Rs.8,313/- in which Rs.7,490/- were demanded as sundry charges and in default of payment by the scheduled date the amount payable was Rs.9,140/-. It was denied if the appellant had submitted any application to the respondents disputing the demanded amount. The issuance of the remaining bills pleaded by the appellant was also admitted. It First Appeal No.460 of 2005. 3 was also admitted that PDCO was issued by the respondents for want of payment and the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.13,271/- in installments which was payable by her.
6. It was also admitted that the electric meter of the appellant was checked by the Assistant Executive Engineer on 25.8.2001 and it was found that she was using 3.42 KW load against the sanctioned load of 2.86 KW. She was also committing theft of electric energy from the main line. The electric connection was checked in the presence of the appellant but she had refused to sign the checking report. Therefore the demand of Rs.7,490/- was legal and valid. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. The appellant proved documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12. She also filed the affidavit of her husband Balbir Singh as Ex.C-13 and her own affidavit as Ex.C14.
8. On the other hand, the respondents proved the document Ex.R-1. They also filed the affidavit of Er. S.P. Mehta as Ex.R-2. They also proved the documents Ex.R-3 to Ex.R-6. They also filed the affidavit of Er. Surjit Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer as Ex.R-7.
9. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.1.2005.
10. Hence the appeal.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted; the impugned judgment dated 20.1.2005 be set aside and the complaint be allowed as prayed.
12. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
13. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
14. The respondents have proved the checking report dated 25.8.2001 as Ex.R1. This report clearly reveals that the appellant was committing theft of electric energy through the wire from the main line. Besides that she was consuming load to the tune of 3.42 K.W. against the sanctioned load of 2.86 K.W. First Appeal No.460 of 2005. 4 The appellant had refused to sign the checking report. Although it is mentioned in the checking report dated 25.8.2001 Ex.R-1 that notice has been given to the appellant for recovery of Rs.7,490/- recoverable from her because of commission of theft and by user of excess load but there is no document placed on the file to that effect. However in the bill for the month of September 2002 Ex.C-5, Rs.7,490/- were included as sundry charges in the bill of the appellant.
15. The appellant has also failed to prove her version that she had filed the objection petition with the respondents disputing the addition of Rs.7,490/- as sundry charges in the bill for the month of September 2002. Therefore her version is also wrong that she did not pay the bills for the month of November 2002, January 2003 and March 2003 for the reason that the respondents had failed to respond to her application of protest against the inclusion of Rs.7,490/- in the bill for the month of September 2002.
16. It was only on 10.4.2003 when the officials of the respondents came to the house of the appellant for disconnecting the electric connection that the appellant filed an application for permission to deposit the amount of Rs.13,271/- outstanding against her in installments which was permitted by the respondents. She had protested the inclusion of Rs.7,490/- in the bill for September 2002 only vide her letter dated 10.4.2003 Ex.C-2. Balbir Singh husband of the appellant had also sent letter to the respondents on 16.5.2003 Ex.C-3 while the respondents had sent the letter dated 23.6.2003 to the appellant (Ex.C-1) explaining the reasons for which the amount of Rs.7,490/- was added in the bill for the month of September 2002. The respondents have also proved a copy of this letter dated 23.6.2003 by the respondents to the appellant as Ex.R-3 and the letter of the appellant dated 11.9.2003 as Ex.R-5 disputing the legality of the demand of Rs.8,317/- (Rs.7,490/- + Rs.827/-).
17. Moreover checking report dated 25.4.2001 Ex.R-1 is proved by Er. Surjit Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer Ex.R-7 who had checked the electric connection. Therefore the theft of electric energy and use of excess load over and First Appeal No.460 of 2005. 5 above the sanctioned load is not only proved by the checking report but also by the affidavit of Er. Surjit Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer Ex.R-7 who had checked the premises of the appellant.
18. Therefore there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
19. The arguments in this case were heard on 6.12.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
December 16 , 2010 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER