PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Gurmeet Singh

IT''s an appeal against the order dated 20.1.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEFLY stated the facts mentioned in the complaint are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was consumer of electricity vide account No. AK-39/0417-M. On 31.7.1999 at about 6.00 a.m. six persons stated to be employees of the appellant-respondents (hereinafter called the respondents) entered into the house of the complainant and inspected the meter. On the same day at about 9.00 a.m. all these persons again came and demanded Rs. 800/- from the complainant and got signatures of the complainant on blank paper. As the complainant had refused to pay Rs. 800/-, the officials of the respondents went away. It was then alleged in the complaint that on 10.8.1999 respondent No. 3 i.e. SDO, Sub Urban Division No. 2, PSEB, Kapurthala, sent a challan to the complainant for depositing Rs. 2,400/-. The complainant deposited the same on 11.8.1999 vide receipt No. 200. On 12.8.1999 officials of the respondents-Board removed the electric meter of the complainant in spite of the fact that the complainant had shown them receipt of deposit of Rs. 2,400/-. The complainant on 13.8.1999 approached respondent No. 3 for release of connection of electricity but he refused to do so. It was then stated in the complaint that due to non-availability of electric light the complainant could not carry out his business. The electric connection was illegally disconnected without observing the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It was further alleged in the complaint that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and a prayer was made that the respondents be directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- for pain and sufferings undergone by the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. On notice, the respondents filed their reply. It was stated therein that the connection of the complainant was checked by the Task Force headed by Shri S.S. Matharu, A.A.E., Sub Division Dhilwan and it was found that complainant was committing theft of energy by lifting up terminal plate of the electric meter and had installed a wire direct from meter to grip. A checking report was made on the spot in presence of the complainant but the complainant had refused to sign the same. On the basis of checking report, D.C.O. dated 4.8.1999 was issued and notice was sent to the complainant to deposit Rs. 2,400/- upto 10.8.1999. Notice was served on the complainant, which was received by him. It was further stated in the reply that since the complainant did not deposit the required amount on 10.8.1999, the electric connection was disconnected and meter was removed on 11.8.1999. But the respondents have admitted in their reply that the complainant had deposited Rs. 2,400/- on 11.8.1999 after the connection had been disconnected. Since the complainant had deposited the amount, the R.C.O. dated 11.8.1999 was issued to restore the connection of the complainant. It was further stated in the reply that the employees of the respondents had gone to install the meter and for restoring the connection of the meter but the complainant did not allow them to install the meter. The employees submitted the report on R.C.O. dated 11.8.1999 and on the written instructions of SDO, the employees of the respondents were again sent to install the meter of the complainant on 13.8.1999 but the complainant again did not allow them to install the meter. It was then alleged in the reply that the connection of the complainant could be restored only after filing the fresh application and after completing the formalities by the complainant. It was pleaded in the reply that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and, therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties, District Forum allowed the complaint. As the connection was restored during the pendency of the complaint, a direction was issued by the District Forum to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and physical inconvenience gone through by the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and Rs. 1,000/- was awarded as costs of the complaint. Hence this appeal.

WE have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case as well as the detailed order passed by the District Forum. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The contention of the respondents that though they had gone to the premises of the complainant to restore the electric connection but the complainant did not allow to restore the same has rightly been found to be incorrect by the District Forum. When the complainant had deposited the sum of Rs. 2,400/- as demanded by the respondents it could not then be believed that the complainant did not allow the respondents to re-install the meter and to restore the electric connection of the complainant. If the complainant had not allowed the respondents to re-install the meter, the respondents should have served a registered notice to the complainant with regard to the same. The plea of the respondents that they had gone to the premises of the complainant to re-install the meter and to restore the electric connection seems to be an afterthought. District Forum has rightly held that in fact respondents had failed to re-install the meter and restore the electric connection even after the complainant had deposited Rs. 2,400/- as demanded by them and that the action of the respondents amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Though the complainant had prayed for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of pain and sufferings gone through by him due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents by not installing the meter and restoring the electric connection even after the deposit of the amount as demanded by the respondents, District Forum had given only Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. We do not find the compensation as excessive in any manner. It was a proper and just compensation in the circumstances of the case. We, thus, do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as meritless. Appeal dismissed.