State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parampal Kaur Wife Of Kulwant Singh, vs Punjab State Electricity Board Through ... on 30 September, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1537 of 2006
Date of institution : 7.12.2006
Date of Decision : 30.9.2011
Parampal Kaur wife of Kulwant Singh, resident Tehsil Road Malout, Tehsil
Malout, District Muktsar.
....Appellant.
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board through it's:-
1. Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Senior Executive Engineer, Operation Division Malout, Tehsil Malout,
District Muktsar.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer (Operation) City Sub Division Malout,
Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 10.11.2006 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Muktsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. I.S. Mann, Advocate
For the respondents : None.
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by appellant/complainant-Parampal Kaur(hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 10.11.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was user of DS electricity connection No. TR-28/0186 and paid the bills regularly. She was having sanctioned load of 2.980 KW. It was pleaded that some days ago officials of the respondents came to her premises and told that they want First Appeal No. 1537 of 2006 2 to check the meter installed in her premises. After checking they told the appellant to sign some papers for which firstly she refused to sign on the same but when the official told that it is mere formality regarding checking then she put her signatures on the blank papers. Thereafter, she received memo No. 2105 dated 20.12.2004 of Rs. 70,579/- on account of using unauthorized load. Thereafter the husband of the appellant met respondent No. 3 who informed that the connection was checked on 20.12.2004 and told to deposit the amount immediately otherwise connection would be disconnected. It was pleaded that her connection was neither checked in her presence nor the site/checking report was prepared on the spot. Copy of the same was not signed by her or by any member of her family/ or representative nor the copy of the same was supplied to her. The connection in question was installed on the first floor of the building whereas on the ground floor three shops were in the possession of the tenants and regarding that there was a dispute regarding ejectment from the shops with the tenants. It was told by the officials of the respondents that at the time of checking of the shops of the tenants it was found that they were using the electric energy directly and committing theft of energy. It was pleaded by the appellant that they have nothing to do with the tenants and they have dispute with their tenants and the theft of electric energy was committed by them. No theft of electricity was committed by her. The respondents disconnected the electric connection of the appellant and this action on the part of the respondents; amounts to deficiency in service. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the demand of Rs. 70,579/- may be quashed and compensation and litigation expenses may be awarded against the respondents.
3. Upon notice, the respondents replied that the electric connection of the appellant was inspected on 20.12.2004 by the Flying First Appeal No. 1537 of 2006 3 Squad, Bathinda and found that the appellant was using load of 14.866 KW instead of sanctioned load of 2.980 KW and also found that the appellant was using the electricity by directly connecting the line with PVC cable. Inspection report was prepared at the spot and copy of the same was supplied to the appellant. Thereafter, as per rules memo/notice dated 20.12.2004 was served upon the appellant regarding the demand of Rs. 70,579/-. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, dismissed the complaint of the appellant by observing that the appellant had indulged in the committing theft of energy.
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 appellant.
7. The present appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that the order of the District Forum is against the provisions of law and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. The District Forum ignored the material documentary evidence produced on record by the appellant and wrongly observed that the appellant was committing theft of energy when the same was not proved by the respondents by producing any cogent evidence. The findings of the District Forum that it had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint where the consumer is proved to be guilty of theft of electricity is wrong and the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
8. We have perused memo No. 2105 dated 20.12.2004 Ex. C-2 by which demand of Rs. 70,579/- was raised by the respondent No. 3 from First Appeal No. 1537 of 2006 4 the appellant for excess load as well as charges for theft of energy on the basis of checking report dated 20.12.2004.
9. We have perused the checking report Ex. OP-3. As per the checking report, the electric connection of the appellant was checked by Hardeep Singh Sandhu, Asstt. Executive Engineer (Enforcement), PSEB, Bathinda (Flying Squad) in the presence of the appellant and he found that the connected load of the appellant was 14.866 KW at the spot against the sanctioned load of 2.980 KW. It was also found by the Checking Officer that Ravinder Hairdressor, Dhillon Medical Hall, Amrit Boutique and Sahib Boutique were committing theft of energy by directly connecting the PVC service cable, which was passing near their shops and their connected load was found 5.486 KW at the spot.
10. So from the inspection report, it is clear that the appellant was not found committing theft of energy rather the tenants of the appellant were committing theft of energy but no action was taken by the Inspecting Official nor by the respondents against those persons, who were committing theft of energy by connecting the wire with PVC cable line to steal the electricity. The respondents have failed to produce any rules and regulations or circulars of the Board to prove that how the appellant was liable to pay the theft charges when the electricity was not being stolen with the consent of the appellant. The persons, who were found committing theft of energy were liable to pay the theft charges. We are unable to understand how the demand of theft charges was raised from the appellant when she had no concern with the committing of theft by her tenants. So from the note given on the checking report, it was the case of the respondents that her tenants were committing theft of energy by connecting direct cable from the joint of PVC and were committing theft of energy and used the excess load to the tune of 5.486 KW. First Appeal No. 1537 of 2006 5
11. It is admitted case of the respondents that the connected load of the above four tenants was found as 5.486 KW, which they were stealing and at the spot total connected load was found as 14.866 KW, as such, the connected load of the appellant was 14.866 KW - 5.486 KW = 9.380 KW. The sanctioned load of the appellant was 2.980 KW, as such, the appellant was using excess load of 9.380 KW - 2.980 KW = 6.400 KW at the spot. She is liable to pay the charges of excess load of 6.400 KW only as per the regulations / circulars of the Board, which were applicable at the time of checking. The demand of the respondents for the excess load of 14.866 KW as well as of the theft charges totaling Rs. 70,579/- is illegal.
12. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum only on the ground that the appellant was committing theft of energy, as such, the Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the claim when it is proved that the consumer has indulged in the theft. But as per the above discussion, it is proved that the appellant was not committing theft of energy, as such, the findings of the District Forum are contrary to the checking report of the respondents.
13. We have also perused the reply as well as affidavit of Sh. Gurdial Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer Ex. OP-1 and affidavit of Amarjit Singh, Junior Engineer Ex. OP-2. In the reply as well as in the affidavits, it is the pleaded case of the respondents that the appellant was committing theft of energy but as per the note given on the checking report by the checking official, the tenants of the appellant were committing theft of energy. It is also not the version of the respondents that the tenants were committing theft of energy with the connivance of the appellant. So the version given in the written reply and in the affidavits is contrary to the checking report Ex. OP-3.
First Appeal No. 1537 of 2006 6
14. As per the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is partly accepted and the order under appeal is set-aside with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Memo No. 2105 dated 20.12.2004 of Rs. 70,579/- is quashed and the respondents are directed to issue fresh memo for the demand of excess load of 6.400 KW as per regulations/circulars of the Corporation, which were applicable at the time of checking of the meter of the appellant. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- be adjusted against the charges of excess load of 6.400 KW and the appellant will deposit the remaining amount, if any, after adjusting Rs. 5,000/- with the respondents within two months from the receipt of the memo of demand or she will be at liberty to file the objections to the same before the official, who will issue the memo of demand, if she found any illegality in the said demand.
15. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- be recovered from the Officer, who raised the demand of Rs. 70,579/- vide memo No. 2105 dated 20.12.2004 within two months.
16. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/ complainant is partly accepted.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 26.9.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
19. The copy of the order be sent to the Chairman of the respondents to take the necessary action against the official, who was at fault and report to the Commission within two months intimating the action taken by the Department.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
September 30, 2011. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member
First Appeal No. 1537 of 2006 7