BALWINDER SINGH, J.E., P.S.E.B. vs OM PARKASH KANDHARI

IT is an appeal against the order dated 13.1.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that an electric connection was installed at the residence of respondent No. 1 (complainant before the District Forum) (hereinafter called the complainant). Appellant-Balwinder Singh, J.E. (opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called the appellant) visited the house of the complainant and asked the complainant to produce the bill. The complainant produced the bill but the appellant told him that the consumption was very much less. Appellant threatened the complainant to impose a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and also asked him to settle the matter with him; failing which his electric connection would be disconnected. He demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- but the complainant showed his inability to pay anything. Ultimately, he paid Rs. 1,500/- but the appellant was not satisfied. It is then stated in the complaint that the complainant also met Mr. R.K. Salwan, Superintending Engineer and narrated the whole story to him. The Superintending Engineer directed the complainant to see the Senior Executive Engineer. The complainant met him on 19.5.1999. He submitted a complaint in writing to him but his complaint was forwarded to the SDO, Gopal Nagar Sub Division for investigation and report. The appellant along with Mr. Jalota, J.E.-I visited the premises of the complainant again on 30.7.1999 and sealed the meter and directed him to visit the office of the SDO. The complainant went there and J.E. Balwinder Singh recorded his statement. Ultimately, letter dated 30.6.1999 imposing penalty of Rs. 9,837/- was received by the complainant. The complainant did not admit the validity of the letter and he sought following reliefs: (i) Not to take any further action on letter bearing No. 4006, dated 30.6.1999 delivered to him on 5.8.1999. (ii) Refund of Rs. 1,500/- which was forcibly taken by Balwinder Singh, J.E., from the complainant.

Written reply was filed by the opposite parties i.e. appellant before us and SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Gopal Nagar Sub-Division, Majitha Road, Amritsar-respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called as opposite parties when referred to collectively). It was stated in the reply that the complainant had not come to the District Forum with clean hands and had concealed the material facts from the District Forum. It was stated in the reply that the connection of the complainant was checked by the J.E. Balwinder Singh i.e. the appellant along with other staff of the PSEB on 13.5.1999 for the purpose of checking the connected load of the complainant and on checking it was found that in-going and out-coming wires of the meter were interchanged and one grip was also removed in order to stop the meter from recording the consumption of electricity which was being consumed by the complainant at that time in order to defraud the Board of its valuable revenue. It is further stated in the reply that the connected load of the complainant was also checked on the spot and he was found to have been running 5.580 K.W. of the load, whereas sanctioned load of the complainant was 2 K.W. and the complainant was found running the extended load unauthorisedly to the tune of 3.580 K.W. As such, report was prepared on the spot which the complainant refused to sign and accordingly as per the instructions of the Board, he was charged to compensate the Board for the loss of revenue due to illegal acts of the complainant. The opposite parties had acted in accordance with the provisions of the law, rules, regulations and the instructions issued by the Board from time-to-time and in due discharge of the official functions. Notice for compensation was rightly issued to the complainant. Allegation of bribe is specifically denied in the reply. It is then stated in the reply that the complainant was guilty of his own illegal acts of omission and commission as he was found committing theft of energy by reversing the wires from the meter and removing the grip to stop the meter from recording the consumption of electricity being consumed by the complainant at the time of inspection as he was caught red-handed and he was also found to have been running the extended load unauthorisedly to the extent of 3.580 K.W. detail of which is given in the report dated 13.5.1999 which the complainant had refused to sign. All other allegations made by the complainant have been denied in the reply. Allegation of illegal gratification has also been specifically denied in the reply. Ultimately, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. Appellant had also filed an affidavit with the written reply.

After hearing the arguments and after having gone through the documents and other evidence on the file, the District Forum allowed the complaint by observing that a false and frivolous case has been planted upon the complainant. The operative part of the order of the District Forum reads as under: "Accordingly, we accept the complaint with costs of Rs. 1,000/- and set aside the impugned penalty. We also award compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Costs of Rs. 1,000/- and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- shall be recovered from the salary of Balwinder Singh, J.E. Rs. 6,000/- be paid within 30 days from the date of communication of order; failing which action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, will be taken against Balwinder Singh, J.E. Chief Engineer is also directed to restrain J.E. Balwinder Singh not to go to any premises for the purpose of inspection to harass any consumer."

The District Forum allowed the complaint mainly on the following grounds: (i) That the J.E. i.e. the appellant was not authorized to enter any house for the purpose of inspection. If at all he entered into the house, it amounted to criminal trespass;

(ii) That the appellant-J.E. did not prepare the inspection report on any inspection register. He prepared the report on paper other than the prescribed proforma and deposed falsely that the complainant/representative to sign the report;

(iii) That extraneous consideration of allegations of theft of energy stood substantiated by making a wrong report by the appellant-J.E. that the complainant was using unauthorized load to the extent of 3.580 K.W. and that running load as detected by him at the time of inspection was 5.580 K.W. against the sanctioned load of 2 K.W. Detail of excess load was not given either in the complaint or by the J.E. in his affidavit. Allegation of unauthorised load was falsified by Mr. Jodh Singh Saini, A.E. Commercial, who was sent as a Local Commissioner and he had submitted his report in the District Forum wherein it was clearly mentioned that the connected load was 1.870 K.W. less than 2 K.W. when found by him on 7.12.1999.

WE are unable to understand as to how the District Forum had reached at the conclusion that the appellant-J.E. was not authorised to enter any house for the purpose of inspection. U.O. No. 704/47, dated 2.3.1996 brought to our notice clearly indicates that the J.E. was authorized to authenticate theft of energy in case of domestic consumers. The wording of the above said U.O. is reproduced hereunder: "The decision taken by the Whole Time Members in their Special meeting held on 27.1.1996 at Patiala on the above item is reproduced below: (It was decided to authorize the J.Es. to authenticate theft of energy in case of domestic consumers.)"

This fact is not even denied before us by anyone; rather, the Counsel for the appellant-PSEB has stated before us that the J.E. was authorised to inspect the premises of the complainant. The observation of the District Forum contained in (ii) above is also not based upon any fact on the record. It has been stated in the reply filed by appellant along with other opposite party i.e. opposite parties before the District Forum that the connected load of the complainant was checked on the spot and he was found to have been running 5.580 K.W. of the load, whereas sanctioned load of the complainant was 2 K.W. and he was found running the extended load unauthorisedly to the tune of 3.580 K.W. and the report was prepared on the spot which the complainant refused to sign. It is then stated in the reply that the officials of the Board acted in accordance with the provisions of law, rules, regulations and the instructions issued by the Board from time-to-time and in due discharge of the official functions. District Forum has neither mentioned any rule nor any other fact for reaching at a conclusion that the appellant and the other officials of the Board had prepared a wrong report or the preparation of the report was contrary to any rule, act or other provision made by the Board. Even in the affidavit filed by the appellant it has been specifically stated that the connection of the complainant was checked by him along with other staff of the Board on 13.5.1999 for the purpose of checking the connected load of the complainant and on checking of the connection, it was found that in-going and out-coming wires of the meter were interchanged and one grip was also removed in order to stop the meter from recording the consumption of electricity which was being consumed by the complainant at that time. The connected load of the complainant was also checked on the spot and he was found to have been running 5.580 K.W. load whereas the sanctioned load was 2 K.W. It is then specifically stated in the affidavit that report to that effect was prepared by the appellant on the spot which the complainant had refused to sign.

THE observations of the District Forum made in (iii) above were also without any basis. As proved from the reply as well as the affidavit filed by the appellant-J.E. and the PSEB authorities as well a the report made by the appellant, which is placed on the record, it is found that a report was prepared by the appellant-J.E. at the spot and every required detail was given on the report. So far as the report of the Local Commissioner is concerned, it was not of any value because when the Local Commissioner had gone later on to the site, the complainant knew about the visit of the Local Commissioner and obviously then he may not be using the excess load at the time of inspection by the Local Commissioner. We do not understand as to how the report of the Local Commissioner is relevant in negativing the report of the appellant-J.E. who caught the complainant red-handed while using the excess load. Though it is necessary as stated by the District Forum that at the time of inspection of the report the signatures of the consumer or his representative have to be obtained but at the same time it is provided in the rules and regulations of the PSEB and which has not been denied before us by anyone that in case the consumer or his representative refused to sign the report then it was sufficient to make a note by the person preparing the report that the consumer or his representative had refused to sign the report and in the case in hand it has been specifically stated in the reply filed by the opposite parties and has been specifically stated by the appellant-J.E. in his affidavit before the District Forum that the complainant was present at the time of inspection but he had refused to sign the report. THE inference drawn by the District Forum otherwise is not based upon any record. In view of our discussion made above, we allow this appeal with cost, which are quantified at Rs. 2,000/- and set aside the order dated 13.1.2000 of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Appeal allowed.