GURNAM SINGH vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

IT is an appeal against the order dated 4.9.2000 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 in the house of the appellant -complainant (hereinafter called the complainant). His sanctioned load was 0.540 K.W. Meter Inspector of the respondent -opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) inspected the premises of the complainant in the month of January, 2000 and reported that connected load of the house of the complainant was 9.386 K.W. against sanctioned Kundi connection load of. 0.540 K.W. Opposite parties imposed penalty of Rs. 20,700/ - vide memo dated 6.3.2000. The complainant did not admit validity of the memo. The complainant sought the following reliefs - ''(i) not to recover Rs. 20,700/ -; (ii) not to disconnect Kundi electric connection bearing A/c. No. JH 52/279F; (iii) any other relief.''

Opposite parties appeared and filed written reply wherein it was stated that the complainant was found committing theft of energy by using 9.386 K.W. load against sanctioned load of 0.540 K.W. at the time of checking by the Meter Inspector in January, 2000. It was also alleged in the reply that the complainant was found running a school in the building and for this reason demand of Rs. 20,700/ - was raised vide memo dated 6.3.2000 for committing theft of energy by using unauthorised load and that this amount included Rs. 2,700/ - plus Service Connection Charges of Rs. 9,000/ -plus unauthorized extension of load of Rs. 9,000/ -, totalling Rs. 20,700/ -. It was, thus, prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

AFTER hearing the arguments and after having gone through the documents on the file the District Forum dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs. 500/ -.

HENCE this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the record of the case as well as the order of the District Forum minutely.

EX . R -4 produced on the record proves that the Inspecting Officer found 32 lamps, 8 fans, 5 ampere plugs, one A.C., etc. Total connected load was found to be 8.846 K.W. against sanctioned load of 0.540 K.W. Although the complainant did not admit this connected load of

846 K.W. but he did not explain the actual connected load in his premises. Neither he told the District Forum the detail of the connected load in his premises nor he made any request to the District Forum to appoint any Local Commissioner to assess the actual load. If the complainant was running his school and he was also operating an A.C. the connected load could not be less than 8.846 K.W. as assessed by the Meter Inspector. Extension of unauthorized load did not mean committing of theft or energy. The complainant was not committing the theft of energy but he had connected load of 8.846 K.W. against sanctioned load of 0.546 K.W. It was in these circumstances that the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed; however, without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.