State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pseb Through Its Sdo, Sub Division, ... vs Dev Singh Son Of Sohan Singh on 15 February, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.77 of 2010
Date of institution:19.01.2010
Date of Decision : 15.02.2011
1. PSEB through its SDO, Sub Division, Dhilwan, District
Kapurthala.
2. PSEB through its XEN, Near Anjla Fatak, Kapurthala.
3. PSEB through its S.E. near Anjla Fatak, Kapurthala.
4. Amarjit Singh, J.E. Sub Division, Dhilwan, District Kapurthala.
5. PSEB through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
.....Appellants.
Versus
Dev Singh son of Sohan Singh son of Gopal Singh r/o Village
Bhullar Bet, District Kapurthala.
........Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
10.12.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kapurthala.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate
For the respondent : None
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by PSEB(in short 'the appellant') against the order dated 10.12.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (in short the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent is consumer of appellants vide electric connection bearing account No.TS-864. It's old account number was M2-380. A false case was registered First Appeal No.77 of 2010 2 against the respondent bearing FIR No.27 dated 22.5.2009 under Sections 353/379/148/149 IPC. The respondent never committed theft as alleged by the appellants and never took the law in hands. The whole case was false because the appellant No.4 was demanding bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the respondent and on refusal, the appellants registered a false case against the respondent. In fact the respondent is a consumer of appellants and electric motor was running legally under VDS Scheme and it was in the name of father of the respondent. Appellant No.1 sent a letter vide which illegal demand of Rs.38,673/- was raised as fine and he was directed to deposit the same within seven days otherwise appellant No. 1 will disconnect the electric connection of the respondent. Respondent served a legal notice upon all the appellants but they failed to give reply. This act of the appellant is deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Appellants filed their written reply and raised preliminary objections that respondent has no locus-standi to file complaint, respondent is not a 'consumer' of the appellants. Tubewell connection No.M2-380 was released in the name of Sohan Singh, Village Dhaliwal Bet from 11 K.V. Dhaliwal Feeder on 63 KVA Mohinder Kaur Wala Transformer. The entry in this regard is in CLR at Sr.No.3. On this feeder, there are 6 A.P. connections having total 22 BHP load. Thereafter, the load of the connection in dispute was enhanced from 2 BHP to 3 BHP and then from 3 BHP to 5 BHP and new account number T5-864 was issued. Respondent fraudulently prepared the bogus passbook against A/c No. T5-864 as there were no signatures of the competent authority on the passbook. Appellants team comprising of Sr. Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Division, Kapurthala, Er. Darshan Singh, SDO, Sub First Appeal No.77 of 2010 3 Division Tibba and Er. Amarjit Singh, J.E., Sub Division, Dhilwan visited the land of the respondent on 22.6.2009 and found that respondent was committing theft of energy by directly joining wire from L.T. line and was running 5 BHP motor from 11 KV Bhuller Feeder on 63 KVA Khooi Wala Transformer whereas no connection was released from this feeder/transformer in village Bhuller Bet. They also checked the load from three phases and found that from red phase motor was taking current of 11.2 ampere, on yellow phase 11.4 ampere and on blue phase 10.9 ampere, as such, total current comes out 33.5 and average comes out 11.2 ampere and voltage at that time 380 Volt. Load of the motor was calculated as 5 BHP. In the checking register at Sr. No. 31/1025 dated 22.6.2009 observation was recorded and copy of the same was given to Baldev Singh, who refused to sign the same. Thereafter, two sons of the respondent Jaspreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh alongwith two other persons manhandled with the team and detailed them illegally. FIR No.27 dated 22.5.2009 was rightly registered in Police Station Dhilwan. Police had taken 10 meter core wire alongwith starter in its custody. Notice No. 615 dated 22.6.2009 of Rs. 38,673/- alongwith checking report was sent to the respondent and letter was also sent to Inspector, Vigilance, Anti Theft Police Station, Jalandhar for registration of case. The respondent had not approached this Forum with clean hands. It was denied that the appellants had demanded any bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the respondent. On merits, stand taken in the preliminary objections was reiterated and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, quashed the First Appeal No.77 of 2010 4 impugned memo no.615 dated 22.6.2009 of Rs.38,673/- being illegal, null and void and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and instructions of PSEB. Appellants were directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- for mental tension and harassment and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation.
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 filed by the appellants is that the order of the District Forum is against the evidence produced by the appellants against the respondent. It is proved beyond doubt that the respondent was committing theft of energy by connecting direct supply kundi connection for running of 5 BHP tubewell motor illegally and he was caught red handed by the Sr. XEN, Sub Urban Division, Kapurthala on 22.6.2009 and FIR No. 27 dated 22.6.2009 was also got registered by the Sr. XEN, Sub Urban Division, Kapurthala at P.S. Dhilwan, Distt. Kapurthala and the demand of Rs. 38,673/- from the respondent as theft charges is correct.
8. On the other hand, the version of the respondent is that he was not committing theft of energy and the report of Sr. XEN, regarding commission of theft of energy by the respondent is not correct.
9. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the respondent for the appointment of Local Commissioner to inspect whether the tubewell connection bearing A/c No. T5-864, its old A/c No. M2/380 is disconnected by the appellants. On the other hand, in reply filed by the appellants it was pleaded that the said connection is not disconnected by the appellants and the same is running at the spot First Appeal No.77 of 2010 5 and is being used by his cousin Sukhwinder Singh s/o Bakhtawar Singh.
10. Tehsildar, Kapurthala was appointed by the Commission as Local Commissioner vide its order dated 11.11.2010. He was directed to inspect the spot on 17.12.2010 at 12.00 noon in the presence of both the parties and submit report immediately to this Commission regarding the actual and factual position at the spot.
11. The Tehsildar further deputed Naib Tehsildar, Dhilwan for the inspection of the spot vide its order dated 2.12.2010.
12. The Naib Tehsildar, Dhilwan inspected the spot on 22.6.2010 in the presence of the parties as well as the respectable of village Dhaliwal Bet and also recorded the statements of the respondent, XEN and employees of the appellants. He also recorded the statement of Sukhwinder Singh s/o Bakhtawar Singh and submitted his report No. 423 dated 28.12.2010 to Tehsildar Kapurthala, who forwarded the same to the Commission vide No. 45 dated 4.1.2011. No objections to the report of the Naib Tehsildar were filed by anybody. So we are of the view that the report of the Naib Tehsildar is correct and as per actual and factual position at the spot in dispute.
13. As per the report of the Naib Tehsildar, Dhilwan, tubewell connection number which was released in the name of Sohan Singh s/o Gopal Singh father of the respondent was purchased by Bakhtawar Singh s/o Shiv Singh i.e. father of Sukhwinder Singh and the same is connected with 63 KVA transformer Mohinderkaur Wala.
14. The Naib Tehsildar further submitted that the spot where the officials of the appellant alleged that the respondent was committing theft of energy, there was no sign of any room for running the motor; First Appeal No.77 of 2010 6 only there was one bore in which motor was lying. There was no pole or cable was found. As per the Girdawari regarding Khasra No. 148/8/2 no entry was found regarding the electric motor.
15. So, from the report of the Naib Tehsildar, it is proved that there was no pole from where the respondent was committing theft of energy by connecting direct kundi connection.
16. We have also perused the checking report Ex. R-4 and as per the checking report Sh. Darshan Singh, SDO, Sub Division, Tibba with Sh. Amarjit Singh, JE, Sub Division, Dhilwan visited the land of the respondent on 22.6.2009 and found that respondent was committing theft of energy by directly joining the cable from LT line and was running a 5 BHP motor from 11 KV Bhullar Fedder on 63 KVA Khuiwala Transformer whereas no connection was released from this feeder and village Bhuller Bet. Checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of Baldev Singh but he refused to sign and to take the copy of the checking report. However, meanwhile Jaspreet Singh, Gurpreet Singh sons of Baldev Singh alongwith two other persons, namely. Tarsem Singh and Pradeep Singh reached at the spot and they alongwith respondent manhandled the checking party and FIR No. 27 dated 22.6.2009 under Section 353, 379, 186, 149 IPC was registered at P.S. Dhilwan. The police also took 10 meters 3 core wire alongwith starter in its custody from the spot.
17. So from the above report the length of the cable was 10 meter only which was illegally directly connected by the respondents with the LT line but as per the report of the Naib Tehsildar there was no pole found near the spot in dispute where the respondent as per the version of the appellants was found erected/standing. So if there was First Appeal No.77 of 2010 7 no pole near the spot then how it was possible that as per the version of the appellants the respondent was committing theft of energy.
18. District Forum has passed detailed order after discussing the version of both the parties and we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The appeal of the appellant is meritless and as such, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.
19. This Commission has appointed Tehsildar, Kapurthala as Local Commissioner vide order dated 11.11.2010 and he was directed to inspect the spot on 17.12.2010 at 12.00 noon in the presence of both the parties and submit the report immediately to the Commission.
20. The said Tehsildar, Kapurthala instead of complying with the order dated 11.11.2010 of this Commission and inspecting the spot himself and submitting the report, deputed Naib Tehsildar, Dhilwan Kalan to inspect the spot on 2.12.2010, although he was not authorized by this Commission to further delegate the powers to his subordinate.
21. A separate show cause notice be issued by the Registry to Tehsildar, Kapurthala(the incumbent posted at Kapurthala on 11.11.2010 or the Tehsildar, who deputed Naib Tehsildar, Dhilwan Kalan vide its letter No. 2793 dated 2.12.2010) as to why the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be not initiated against him for not complying with the order of this Commission.
22. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.02.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
23. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 9,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. Out of this amount of Rs. 9,000/-, Rs. 5,000/-(as per direction of the District Forum) be remitted to the respondent and the remaining amount alongwith First Appeal No.77 of 2010 8 interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
February 15, 2011 (Piare Lal Garg)
As Lb/- Member
First Appeal No.77 of 2010 9