State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tarsem Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 23 November, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.514 of 2006
Date of institution : 03.04.2006
Date of decision : 23.11.2011
Tarsem Singh s/o Sh.Makhan Singh, resident of Opposite OCM Mills,
G.T.Road, Chheharta, District Amritsar.
...Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board through its concerned SDO, Sub Division
West, PSEB, District Amritsar.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
6.12.2005 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.S.K.Mahajan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate.
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This is an appeal against the order dated 6.12.2005 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum"), wherein the complaint of appellant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is having electric connection bearing No.YW44/0484 released in the name of father of the appellant namely Sh.Makhan Singh, who had since expired and thereafter the appellant is using the connection and making the payment of the bills issued by the respondents. It was pleaded that the said electric connection is being used by the appellant in his small shop for the purpose of earning livelihood for himself and for his family members. It was pleaded that respondents issued a bill No.221 dated 21.1.2005 for a sum of Rs.8912/- on the allegation of theft of electricity on the part of the appellant. It has First Appeal No. 514 of 2006 2 further been pleaded that no opportunity was provided to the appellant before issuing the impugned memo. It was also pleaded that the said electric connection was being used on the ground floor of the shop of the appellant and same was not at all used for the first floor, because the upper portion on the first floor was not, at all, in use. It was also pleaded that the respondents had never checked the premises of the appellant at any time nor the inspection report bore the signature of the appellant. It was also pleaded that the appellant was an illiterate person and he only knew to read and write Punjabi language. It was also pleaded that the action of the respondents was violative of statutory conditions of supply and thus the respondents were not justified to raise by the impugned memo.
3. Upon notice, the respondents filed a joint written statement in which the preliminary objection was taken that the appellant was using the electric connection, released under NRS category, for carrying out the commercial activities, therefore, was not the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto the date. It was also pleaded that the electric connection account no.YW44/0484 was released in the name of Sh.Makhan Singh and the appellant was not the consumer qua the respondents. Therefore, he had no right to file the complaint. It was further pleaded that on 15.1.2005 the abovesaid electric connection was inspected by Sh.Harbant Singh, AEE, PSEB West Sub Division, Amritsar along with other staff in the presence of the appellant and during the said checking the appellant was found committing theft of energy by using direct supply from the main service by way of bye-passing the meter by connecting private wires. The checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of appellant, who after admitting the contents of the same to be correct signed the said checking report. It was found to be a case of theft of energy. On the basis of checking report, memo No.221 dated 21.1.2005 was issued to the appellant raising an amount of First Appeal No. 514 of 2006 3 Rs.8712/- as per rules and regulations of the respondent board. It was denied that memo was illegal, arbitrary or against the principles of natural justice and the conditions of supply. It was also denied that the appellant was using the electric connection on the ground floor of his shop only and also that he was not using the electricity on the upper portion of the building. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. The learned District Forum after going through the pleadings and evidence on record dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the grounds that the appellant was using the electric connection for commercial purpose and hence was not consumer of the respondents. The complaint was dismissed on merits as well.
6. Hence the appeal.
7. So far the commercial purpose is concerned, the respondents have failed to prove it because the appellant was running his small business obviously to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. Moreover, since the appellant was using this connection and was making the payment of electricity bills, he was the consumer qua the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the checking of the electric connection was not done in his presence nor the report produced by the respondent board bore the signature of the appellant. Hence appeal be accepted. He also submitted the written arguments.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no merit in the present appeal and same be dismissed.
10. Submissions have been considered and record has been perused.
11. The appellant has contended in his appeal that the checking of the electric connection was not done in his presence and the alleged checking report dated 15.1.2005 did not bear his signature. He has placed on record two copies of checking report dated 15.1.2005 as Ex.C4 & Ex.C5. It has been argued that even though both the reports referred to the same First Appeal No. 514 of 2006 4 checking but there is variation on the contents of these reports because there are certain remarks on the checking report Ex.C4 whereas these are not existing on the checking report Ex.C5. The respondents have also proved the inspection report as Ex.R3. Scrutiny of which shows that the checking report Ex.R3 tally with the report placed by the appellant on record as Ex.C4. However, the careful scrutiny of checking report proved as Ex.C5 reveals that all remarks contained in this report are also existing on Ex.C4/Ex.R3. The additional remarks on Ex.C4 pertained to follow up action taken in the office of the respondents. These remarks indicate how the amount charged to the appellant was worked out and when MCO No.100/34330 and TDCO No.95/65778 were issued and when the notice No.2792 was issued to the appellant. Evidently these two reports pertained to the one and same inspection carried out on 15.1.2005 vide page No.25 of checking register No.211. It also shows that both the documents proved by the appellant bear the signature of the appellant Sh.Tarsem Singh confirming that he was present at the time of inspection. Evidently Ex.C5 is the same consumer copy of the inspection report, whereas Ex.C4 is the office copy of the same report.
12. Even though the appellant has contended that he was not present during the inspection, he has not explained how he is in possession of consumer copy as well as office copy of the inspection report. Evidently the consumer copy of the report was handed over to the appellant at the time of inspection. The inspection report proved by the respondents as Ex.R3/Ex.C4 is further supported by affidavit of Sh.Harbant Singh, AEE, PSEB West Division Amritsar, who conducted the inspection of the electric connection of the appellant on 15.1.2005.
13. The appellant has filed affidavit of one Sh.Major Singh son of Sh.Bakshish Singh a neighbourer of the appellant as Ex.C6 to prove that appellant only know the Punjabi language and also that he was not using the upper portion of his shop. This affidavit obtained by the appellant First Appeal No. 514 of 2006 5 cannot be taken on the face value because he being a neighbour, is an interested witness. Even the signature put by the appellant on the complaint and various affidavits are in the running hand in Punjabi and do not look like those of an illiterate person as claimed by the appellant. The inspection report of the senior officer of the respondent board, prepared at site during the course of performance of his duties, cannot be ignored simply because the appellant claims that he is an illiterate person and does not sign in English.
14. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and same is dismissed and impugned order of learned District Forum is upheld.
15. The arguments in this case were heard on 16.11.2011 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member November 23, 2011.
Davinder