PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Jasbir Singh

IT''s an appeal against the order dated 27.12.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the electric connection No. KA 54/344 was installed in the residence of the complainant-respondent (hereinafter called the complainant). He got the load of 5 KW enhanced to 9 KW on 21.9.1998 after depositing necessary charges for increase of load from 5 KW to 9 KW. Appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) ultimately had installed a three-phase meter at the residence of the complainant on 10.8.1999. The complainant had been making the payments of the bills regularly. He could not make payment of the bills for the period from 5/99 to 7/99 due to non-receipt of the bills of that period. Shri Anil Kumar, JE, managed to get DCO against the complainant due to non-payment of the bill pertaining to the period from 5/99 to 7/99. Some officials of the opposite party had visited the premises of the complainant with DCO for non-payment of bill of Rs. 1,270/-. Illegal penalty of Rs. 10,907/- was alleged to have been imposed upon the complainant at the instance of Shri Anil Kumar, JE. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was also detained in the Police Station from morning to evening. The complainant did not accept the validity of the penalty. Hence in the complaint filed before the District Forum, he asked for the following reliefs : "(i) To set aside the impugned penalty of Rs. 10,907/-. (ii) To refund this amount with interest. (iii) Compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. (iv) Rs. 2,000/- as costs of proceedings. (v) Any other relief."

Opposite party in its written statement alleged that the complainant had raised a complaint regarding the disruption in the electricity supply to his house No. 309, Medical Enclave, Amritsar. His complaint was recorded at Serial No. 265 in the Complaint Office of Ranjit Avenue, C-Block, Amritsar and his grievance was removed. When the staff of the opposite party had visited the house of the complainant to inform him regarding the removal of his grievance, it was detected that the complainant was commiting theft of energy vis-a-vis incoming wire in the terminal block connecting the ingoing wires directly with the incoming in the terminal block and that interference in the wiring was detected by the staff of the opposite party and theft of energy was detected. The complainant had raised a dispute and had manhandled the staff of the opposite party and also used abusive language. Thus, a complaint was also lodged in the Police Station. It was alleged that the demand of Rs. 10,907/- was raised vide memo dated 14.9.1999, which was paid by the complainant on the same day. A prayer was made in the reply that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

The complainant had filed rejoinder wherein he had reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and had denied the version of the opposite party.

AFTER hearing the arguments and after having gone through the documents and other evidence on the file, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant with 15% per annum interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Hence this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order of the District Forum as well as record of the case.

IN its detailed order, the District Forum has rightly held that theft of energy on the part of the complainant is not proved. If the complainant had actually committed theft of energy, officials of the opposite party would have prepared a site inspection report, which was not so done. If the inspection report is not prepared then the allegations of theft of energy could be termed as wild allegations. It has been held in PSEB v. M/s. Hoshiarpur Automobiles, 1998 (1) CLT 402, and PSEB and Another v. Jagdish Chand and Another, 1998 (1) CLT 378, that if inspection report was not attested by a consumer or his representative when the flying squad visited the spot then such report could not be legally relied upon. Since no inspection report was prepared at the spot at all, allegations of theft of energy by the complainant could not be substantiated. Anil Kumar, JE, did not give any explanation as to why he had failed to produce consumption data of disputed and undisputed period to prove that the complainant had committed any theft of energy. He admitted before the District Forum that he did not prepare any inspection report, the preparation of which was mandatory on the part of the Junior Engineer. The whole matter seems to be the result of annoyance of Anil Kumar, Junior Engineer with the complainant. District Forum has, thus, rightly held that the opposite party had planted a false complaint of theft against the complainant. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed.