State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board Through ... vs Mangal Dass Son Of Sh. Jiwa Ram, on 9 August, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 369 of 2010
Date of institution : 10.3.2010
Date of Decision : 9.8.2011
Punjab State Electricity Board through its Asstt. Executive Engineer, Distribution
Sub Division, Anandpur Sahib, Distt. Ropar.
....Appellant.
Versus
Mangal Dass son of Sh. Jiwa Ram, resident of village Lang Majari, Tehsil
Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 27.1.2010 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ropar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by appellant/PSEB (hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 27.1.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called 'the respondent') was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that electric connection No. AP-47- 63 was got installed in the premises of the respondent and he had been paying the electricity charges regularly. His load was 1.04 KW but the same was enhanced by the appellant 2.80 KW by arbitrarily charging Rs. 1,500/- as sundry charges for enhancement of load. Respondent requested to the appellant for reducing the load but the appellant delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. It was pleaded by the respondent First Appeal No. 369 of 2010 2 that on 24.9.2009 at about 11.00 a.m. an official of Sub Division(Distribution), PSEB, Anandpur Sahib visited his premises and handover notice No. 763 dated 24.9.2009. On inquiry on the same day, it was told to his son that the respondent was found committing theft of electric energy on 24.9.2009 at 6.00 a.m. by an official of the Board. It was also pleaded that the signatures of his son was obtained on blank papers and asked to deposit the amount mentioned in notice dated 24.9.2009. On coming back, it was found that the electric connection has already been disconnected by the officials of the appellant. Respondent deposited the amount of Rs. 7581/- on the same day with opposite party No. 2(not impleaded as party in the appeal), against receipt. It was also pleaded that Treasury Challan showing deposit of Rs.8400/- on account of compounding charges was also delivered by the officials of the appellant, who deposited the same on 25.9.2009. It was pleaded that the appellant did not deliver any receipt for the remaining amount of Rs. 345/- instead of making request. Then the electricity supply was restored. It was pleaded that notice dated 24.9.2009 was illegal as no theft was committed by the appellant nor any official of the appellant visited his premises at about 6.40 A.M. on 24.9.2009. Complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellants may be directed to refund Rs. 16,326/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and to correct his connected load. A prayer of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on account of harassment as well as Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses was also made.
3. Upon notice, appellant replied the enhancement of load as 2.80 K.W. and the respondent deposited Rs. 1,500/- with the appellant vide bill dated 11.5.2001, claimed from the respondent under head 'sundry charges'. It was pleaded that on 24.9.2009 at about 6.40 A.M. electric connection of the respondent was checked in the presence of First Appeal No. 369 of 2010 3 representative of the respondent by the Checking Team of the Board, comprising of Sarvshri Prem Singh, K.K. Sharma, Hari Dass and Vijay Kumar, Junior Engineers and Sh. Piara Singh, Lineman. It was found during checking that the respondent had used the electric energy by using the electricity directly from main service line and meter was found switched off. After making assessment as per rules demand of Rs. 7,581/- on account of theft penalty was raised. No objections to the assessment were raised and instead of availing the said opportunity, he filed the complaint before the District Forum. It was admitted that the respondent had deposited Rs. 7,581/- with the appellant and Rs. 8,400/- as compounding charges in the Government Treasury. There was no deficiency on the part of the appellant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint with costs of Rs. 1,000/- and set-aside the notice dated 24.9.2009. Appellant was directed to refund Rs. 7581/- deposited on 24.9.2009 and Rs. 8400/- deposited on 25.9.2009 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. In Regulation No. 134.5 relates to the officials, who are competent to inspect and make the assessment of compensation, which is reproduced:-
"2.0. AUTHORIZED OFFICERS: Following officers of the Board shall be competent to carry out checking/inspection and testing of the electrical installation at the consumer's premises:-First Appeal No. 369 of 2010 4
S. No. Category of Connections
Authorized to Enter and
Inspect
1. All Domestic / Non Any officer of operation
Residential wing not below the rank
Connections/AP/SP & of AE (within his
Medium/Large/ Bulk Jurisdiction)
Supply upto 500 KW Load
2. Large & Bulk supply Any officer of operation beyond 500 KW & wing not below the rank Railway Traction of Sr. XEN (within his Jurisdiction) ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS:
1. All categories of Any officer of the consumers with Loads enforcement wing not upto 500 KW below the rank of AEE (within his Jurisdiction)
2. All categories of Any officer of the MMTS consumers with Loads wing not below of Sr. above 500 KW XEN (within his Jurisdiction) MMTS OFFICERS:
1. Medium Supply/Large Sr. XEN/ Addl. SE/ Supply and Bulk Supply MMTS
8. As per the above regulation, the Junior Engineers of the appellant were not competent to inspect and check the electric connection of the respondent.
9. It is also admitted by the appellant in para No. 10 of the reply that T.D.C.O. was issued but it was not physically effected due to the deposit of amount, which was raised in the memo of demand.
10. So from the admission of the appellant, the intention of the officials of the appellant is clear that when as per memo No. 763, the respondent could raise the objections and if he failed to file the same then after fifteen days, the provisional order of assessment was to be converted into the final order of assessment. So it is also proved beyond doubt that the electric connection of the respondent was wrongly and illegally disconnected by the officials of the appellant and the same was re- connected only after depositing of Rs. 345/- from the respondent and even the receipt of the same was also not issued to him.
First Appeal No. 369 of 2010 5
11. The prayer of the respondent for the refund of Rs. 1,500/-, which was raised for the enhancement of his load vide bill dated 11.5.2011 and deposited by the respondent without any protest is not correct. The amount was deposited in the year 2001 and the complaint was filed in the year of 2009, as such, this demand of the appellant is time barred.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is proved beyond doubt that the electric connection of the respondent was not checked on 24.9.2009 as alleged and the respondent was compelled to deposit Rs. 16,326/- on the basis of the said report only to harass the respondent and his connection was illegally disconnected against the rules and regulations and circulars of the Board. The officers of the appellant acted without any fear of law and taking the law in their hands to harass the poor consumer so that in future no consumer dare to oppose the illegal demands of the officials of the appellant. It is the peak of tyranny on the part of the officials of the appellant.
13. The order passed by the learned District Forum is detailed one, which is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal being without any merit is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
14. Costs of Rs. 10,000/- be recovered from the official(s) jointly and severally, who dared to act against the regulations of the Board and be paid to the respondent.
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 2.8.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,850/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs. 1,850/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to First Appeal No. 369 of 2010 6 the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
17. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
August 9, 2011. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member