State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Balbir Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 11 August, 2009
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
S.C.O. NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.721 of 2003
Date of Institution : 12.06.2003
Date of Decision : 11.08.2009
Balbir Singh son of Kartar Singh resident of village Kaneka, Tehsil
Barnala, District Sangrur.
...............Appellant
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its
Secretary.
2. Assistant Engineer (SDO), Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub
Division, Tapa-II (R), Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur.
..............Respondents
Appeal against the order dated 28.03.2003
of District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sangrur.
BEFORE
Mrs.Jasbir Kapoor, Presiding Member
Mr.Piare Lal Garg, Member PRESENT For the appellant : Sh.Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate For the respondent: None PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER The appellant has filed an appeal against the orders dated 28.03.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "District Forum").
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant was a consumer of electricity under the opposite parties at village Kaneke. He received copy of checking report dated 5.8.2002 from the respondent Number 2 alleging that besides the regular connection, the appellant was running another motor illegally. The said allegations were factually untrue. The checking report was unjust and illegal. On this basis, the appellant First Appeal No.721 of 2003 2 sought directions against respondents to withdraw the said checking report and to quash the demand raised on its basis. He also claimed amount of Rs.2200/- on account of compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Respondents admitted that the appellant was a consumer under them. It was pleaded that at the time of checking of the appellant's connection by Ashok Kumar, Junior Engineer, Pardeep Kumar Lineman Gurtej Singh and Darshan Singh, owner of adjoining fields were also present, it was found at the time of checking the complainant was running one extra motor illegally and was committing theft of energy. Checking report was prepared at the spot but Darshan Singh and Gurtej Singh refused to sign the checking report. The claim in complaint was contested and any deficiency in service was denied.
4. Demand of Rs.15,000/- was raised vide memo No.1604 dated 16.08.2002 which is tendered into evidence as Ex.R-2 by the respondents. The basis of the demand in dispute is checking report of Ashok Kumar, JE which is Ex.R-3, it alleged in the checking report that one motor of 7.5 BHP was running directly from the LT Line by way of Kundi connection and the consumer was committing theft of energy. As per the version of the respondents, checking report was prepared at the spot and Sh.Hardeep Singh son of the appellant signed the checking report after admitting the same to be correct and on the basis of the same the demand of Rs.15,000/- was raised from the appellant. It is also the version of the respondents that appellant Balbir Singh who was present at the spot misbehaved with Pardeep Kumar Line Man and also damaged his mobile phone. FIR No.102 dated 6.09.2002 under section 379, First Appeal No.721 of 2003 3 353, 186 and 427 of IPC and 30 of the Police Act at Police Station, Dhanola was registered against Balbir Singh appellant.
5. On the other hand version of the appellant is that no checking was done on 5.8.2002 and the appellant was not committing any theft of energy by running a motor of 7.5 BHP directly from the LT Line by way of Kundi connection. FIR was also lodged illegally on the false allegations of the employees of the respondent. We have pursued the checking report Ex.C-1 which does not bear the signature of Balbir Singh who was committing theft of energy as per the version of the respondents and it is also not case of the respondents that Balbir Singh refused to sign the checking report Ex.C-1. It is mentioned on the Checking Report No. 70 dated 05.08.2002 i.e. as under :-
A) Illegal Motor of 7.5 BHP was running at the spot. B) The Motor was running by way of Kundi connection directly from the LT Line.
C) It was told by the employees of the PSEB, the motor was also found running illegally prior to the checking date 05.08.2002. D) Balbir Singh was present at the spot and he misbehaved with Pardeep Kumar Lineman and tried to give a spade blow and broke his mobile set by snatching from Pardeep Kumar. E) FIR be lodged against Balbir Singh.
6. We are unable to believe if these observations were mentioned in the checking report by Ashok Kumar JE of the PSEB and the son of Balbir Singh namely Hardeep Singh signed the same after admitting the same to be correct. If Balbir Singh was First Appeal No.721 of 2003 4 present at the time of checking as per the version of the respondent then why no note has been given by the checking officer that why he had not obtained the signature of Balbir Singh on the checking report. Why the signature of his son Hardeep Singh were obtained. It is also not the case of the respondent that Balbir Singh refused to sign the report. Nowhere it is also mentioned in the checking report that Darshan Singh and Gurtej Singh who were present at the time of checking as per the version of the respondent refused to sign the checking report.
7. From the above discussion, it seems that the checking report was not prepared at the spot and the same is false and prepared only by the officials of the PSEB to lodge a false FIR against the appellant.
8. We have also gone through the certified copy of the order of Sh.Ajaib Singh, PCS, Barnala vide which the appellant i.e. accused was acquitted from the charges framed against him on the statements of the checking staff of the PSEB who checked the connection in dispute on 5.8.2002 as the prosecution had miserably failed to substantiate the points for determination of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused Balbir Singh. Sh.Ashok Kumar, JE inspecting officer examined as PW3, Pardeep Kumar as PW1, in the criminal case which was registered against the appellant Balbir Singh and it was found by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Barnala that Pardeep Kumar Lineman as well as Sh.Ashok Kumar, JE in the witness box has deposed contradictory and failed to establish on record that Balbir Singh accused/appellant was guilt of the offence under which the accused was charge sheeted.
First Appeal No.721 of 2003 5
9. From the above discussions, we are of the view that the version of the respondent is not believable that the appellant was committing theft of energy by running motor of 7.5 BHP directly from the LT Line by installing direct Kundi connection. The judgment of the District Consumer Forum is not based on the evidence as well as documents produced by both the parties as such the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the order of the District Forum is set aside.
10. If any amount is deposited by the appellant against the demand in dispute vide memo No.1604 dated 16.8.2009 the same be refunded to the appellant @ 7.5% from the date of deposit to its refund. The respondents are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the appellant for mental harassment as well as for litigation expenses. This amount of Rs.5000/- be recovered from the pay of officials of the PSEB who were at fault for their wrong act.
11. The arguments in this case were heard on 11.08.2009 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Mrs. Jasbir Kapoor)
Presiding Member
August 11,2009 (Piare Lal Garg)
Lb/- Member