AJIT AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to release him electricity connection; and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental tension, agony alongwith Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The facts briefly made out from the complaint are that complainant constructed new house, for which, he applied for new electric connection in the office of opposite party, deposited Rs.1390/- as security charges on 15.11.2016 vide receipt No.210016469134 and after completion of formalities, complainant requested the opposite parties to release the connection in his name but they lingered on the matter. They even refused to take written application of complainant, rather opposite party no.3 flatly refused to release him connection until their illegal demand i.e. money, is not fulfilled. Complainant is Pathi in the Gurudwara Sahib and he declined to fulfill their illegal demand. He received message from opposite parties on his mobile No.94175-30088 to make payment of Rs.13040/- on 31.01.2017 and 02.03.2017, as such, complainant deposited Rs.13040/- through cheque No.240666 of State Bank of Patiala, Branch Sri Muktsar Sahib but despite that, opposite parties have not released him electric connection. They lingered C.C. No.153 of 2017 \\3// on the matter on one or the other pretext and lastly, flatly refused to release the connection. Hence, present complaint.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed joint written reply taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties; that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that real facts of the case are that on 16.08.2017, checking party headed by Er. Kuldeep Sharma, AE City Sri Muktsar Sahib checked the premises of complainant and found that there was no meter in his house and was using electricity directly through black 2 core PVC wire which was near about 8 meters from four in one box installed on the pole and on other side joint it in the MCB box installed inside the house. He was caught red handed using electricity illegally. Checking party took the wire in their possession on the spot and handed over it to JE Satnam Singh. Checking party prepared the checking report on Book No.102, page no.23 on the spot and signed the same. Jasminder Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh was present on the spot but refused to sign the checking report and received its copy. These facts are within knowledge of complainant; and that notice dated 18.08.2017 for Rs.2,23,545/- was issued to complainant, in which, compounding charges C.C. No.153 of 2017 \\4// were not mentioned due to second theft case of complainant. Firstly, on 31.05.2013, XEN flying squad Sri Muktsar Sahib checked the premises of complainant and found theft of electricity by complainant vide checking report No.82/1584 dated 31.05.2013 and amount of Rs.92,933/- was also due of checking report dated 31.05.2013. This Forum decided the complaint in this regard and present complainant is held responsible for the payment of theft amount. On merits, allegations of complainant have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Parties were granted sufficient opportunities to produce evidence in order to prove their case.
5. Complainant Sukhdev Singh tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, receipt dated 15.11.2016 Ex.C-2, coloured photocopy of receipt of Rs.13,040/- Ex.C-3, coloured photocopy of bank draft dated 01.03.2017 Ex.C-4, coloured photocopy of phone messages Ex.C-5 to C-8, photocopies of bills Ex.C-9 to C-13, photocopy of order of this Forum Ex.C-14, detail of due amount Ex.C-15, photocopy of bill dated 20.02.2016 Ex.C-16. He also examined CW-2 Darshan Singh who tendered his affidavit Ex.C-17, attested photocopy of certificate of presence dated 20.05.2018 Ex.C-18, photocopy of his Aadhar card Ex.C-19. Thereafter, Sh. D.K. Khichy Advocate closed the C.C. No.153 of 2017 \\5// evidence on behalf of complainant.
6. Sh. K.S. Sammewali Advocate tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Kuldip Raj, S.D.O. Ex.OP-1, certified copy of due amount Ex.OP-2, attested copies of, account statement Ex.OP-3, notice dated 18.08.2017 Ex.OP-4, notice to Inspector Anti Power Theft Ex.OP-5, checking report dated 16.08.2017 Ex.OP-6, checking report dated 31.05.2013 Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the file.
8. Case of the complainant is that he applied for electric connection for his newly constructed house by depositing security fee of Rs.1390/- vide receipt dated 15.11.2016 and then, as per mobile message dated 31.01.2017 & 02.03.2017 of opposite parties, he also deposited Rs.13,040/- through cheque with them. But despite that, opposite parties have not released him electricity connection. On the other hand, version of opposite parties is that firstly an amount of Rs.92933/- was due against complainant on account theft of electricity as his connection was checked on 31.05.2013 and another notice dated 18.08.2017 for Rs.2,23,545/- was also issued to him on account of second theft case, as such, demand of opposite parties is legal. C.C. No.153 of 2017 \\6//
9. Now, coming to first checking report dated 31.05.2013 Ex.OP-7, in which, it is observed that there was construction of house by above mentioned person (Sukhdev Singh). There was no meter on the spot and theft of electricity was being done through direct kundi. But there is no notice on the file demanding amount pertaining to said checking report dated 31.05.2013, even no dispatch register or any postal receipt has been placed on the record by the opposite party to prove that any notice was ever served upon the complainant raising the said demand. Allegedly, the opposite party has straightway claimed the demand of Rs.92,333/- pertaining to checking report dated 31.05.2013 through bill for the month 05/2017 as is mentioned in Ex.OP-2, which is also against the provisions of the Regulations of the PSPCL because as per their own regulations, any pending dues can be recovered only within two years only, as such, demand is time barred. No opportunity of being heard was provided to the complainant by the opposite party before raising the impugned demand/order.
10. He further argued that moreover, as per their own regulations, opposite party cannot charge the dues relating to previous period without issuing a separate bill giving complete detail of the charges levied. Copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied should also be C.C. No.153 of 2017 \\7// supplied to consumer but in the present case, no separate bill or notice giving complete detail of the amount charged or period of the amount ever served upon the complainant. So, as per their own regulations and instructions, opposite party cannot demand this amount and cannot add this amount in current bill. The Ld. Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual of opposite party where regulation no. 93 is regarding payment of arrears not originally billed. Relevant regulation is reproduced hereunder: Payment of Arrears not Originally Billed : 93.1 There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/unauthorized use of electricity or demand / load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/ multiplication factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc. In all such cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges shall be shown as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills shall C.C. No.153 of 2017 \\8// be issued separately giving complete details of the charges in regard to theft cases, slowness of meters, wrong connection of the meter and unauthorized use of electricity etc. In such cases, the copy of relevant instructions under which the charges have been levied shall also be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of cases by consumer forums if approached by the consumer. 93.2 Limitation: Under Section 56(2) of the Act, no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two year from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied.
11. The complainant has put reliance on citation 2016 (2) Consumer Law Today 429 titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Others Vs Dinesh Sharma wherein it is held that Electricity-Sundry charges cannot be charged without show cause notice to complainant. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-electricity-Sundry charges added in electricity bill of complainant-Held-No show cause notice issued to the complainant before imposing penalty-OPs have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served C.C. No.153 of 2017 \\9// upon the complainant-In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency in service-Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case. Para 7-The appellants have failed to show any notice issued to the complainant before imposing the penalty. Our Honble High Court has also opined in Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is required before imposing the penalty and an order about person who was likely to be affected thereby. In the present case, the appellants OPs have miserably failed to show that previous reading of defective meter was correct. In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the electricity Act and it is deficiency in service. Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case.
12. Complainant in support of his claim, has also relied upon the law laid down by Honble Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (U.T.) in R.B.T. No.503 of 2007 in Appeal No.511 of 2001 decided on 17.10.2007 titled Punjab State Electricity Board, Dakha Versus Vinod Kumar Bansal that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section C.C. No.153 of 2017 \\10//
2 (1) (g) Electricity bill Electricity theft Report cannot be relied upon as rightly pointed out by the learned District Forum because it does not indicate in whose presence the checking was done Further more presence of the complainant is not recorded anywhere No affidavit of the person who carried out the checking to prove the contents of the checking report Held that OPs failed to establish by cogent evidence that the complainant was committing theft of energy as mentioned in the demand memo of Rs.9,307/- Therefore, this demand is illegal Learned District Forum has rightly quashed this demand. In one another authority relied upon by the complainant
i.e. Punjab State Electricity Board and another Versus Sham Sunder passed in Appeal No.1293 of 2001, decided on 15 September, 2005, the Honble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has held that (i) Electricity theft Demand notice M.E. Lab report Sustainability Meter was not packed and sealed on the premises in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained Complainant was not called to come present in the M.E. Lab on the day the testing of meter was to take place Demand notice on the ground of M.E. Lab report held not acceptable and liable to be quashed. (ii) Electricity theft Criminal offence has to be proved by some cogent evidence and not on the basis of inferences. C.C. No.153 of 2017 \\11//
13. Further as per their own regulations and instructions, opposite party cannot charge any amount of previous dues or arrears without giving any supplementary bill or notice giving complete detail of charges and also giving copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied. They cannot demand the arrear in the current bill as sundry charges and in the present case, the opposite party have failed to produce any evidence or document which proves that they issued any supplementary bill or notice giving complete and full detail of the amount charged by them on account of checking dated 31.05.2013 Ex.OP-7.
14. Further, as per the directions of this Forum passed through order dated 02.05.2017 in CC/35/2017 Ex.C-14, opposite party has given in writing that Rs.(-)492/- were due against complainant prior to 02.06.2016 pertaining to account No.BB89/3086N (3001087803). Therefore, we are fully convinced with the arguments and case law produced by complainant and hence, demand of Rs.92933/- pertaining to checking report dated 31.05.2013 Ex.OP-7 is not legal.
15. Now, coming to the second demand of opposite parties i.e. Rs.2,23,545/- of notice dated 18.08.2017. Admittedly, complainant deposited security of Rs.1390/- on 15.11.2016 with opposite party through receipt C.C. No.153 of 2017 \\12// Ex.C-2, then deposited Rs.13,040/- through cheque dated 01.03.2017 Ex.C-4 and receipt of which is Ex.C-3. When complainant completed all the formalities as sought by the opposite parties, then it was the duty of opposite parties to release connection as early as possible to him. It is not understandable how opposite parties caught him committing theft of electricity through checking dated 16.08.2017 Ex.OP-6. The opposite parties cannot take benefit of their own wrongs. Firstly they did not release electric connection to complainant in time, then issued bill-cum-show cause notice dated 18.08.2017 Ex.OP-4 requiring him to deposit Rs.2,23,545/-. Furthermore, complainant in support of his claim, has placed on file photocopy of one certificate dated 20.05.2018 Ex.C-18 issued by President and Member of Gurduwara Jand Sahib to the effect that complainant performed duty as Granthi at Gurduwara Jand Sahib, Village Goniana Kalan, District Bathinda alongwith his family i.e. wife Gurmeet Kaur & son Jaspinder Singh from 15.07.2017 to 20.05.2018. When complainant alongwith his family was living in Guruduwara Sahib Village Goniana Kalan, then how he can commit theft of electricity on 16.08.2017.All these facts prove that complainant is being harassed by opposite parties unnecessarily.
16. From the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed. C.C. No.153 of 2017 \\13// Accordingly, demand of opposite parties of Rs.2,23,545/- including Rs.92,933/- of checking dated 31.05.2013 claimed through bill cum show cause notice No.1114 dated 18.08.2017, is hereby quashed and opposite parties are further directed to release the electric connection to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room. Dated: 01-10-2018. (Ajit Aggarwal) President (Mandeep Kaur) Member