PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs MOHAN SINGH

IT is an appeal against the order dated 24.5.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that two electric connections bearing account No. CL-02/0208 and CL-02/0207DS (DL tariff) with sanctioned load capacity of 1 K.W. each were installed in the residential house of the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant). The complainant got his building plan sanctioned from the Corporation Town Planner on 12.1.1998 for raising additional construction in the said house. He had started construction in the month of September/October, 1998. Construction work was in progress when the staff of the appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) raided the premises of the complainant on 8.1.1999. Opposite party was alleged to have prepared a false report on the ground that the connected load was 13.680 K.W. and 2.860 K.W. of the two electric connections, instead of 1 K.W. each. Opposite party imposed penalty of Rs. 23,880/- vide memo dated 18.1.1999 pertaining to Account No. CL-02/0207 and Rs. 4,185/- vide memo dated 18.1.1999 pertaining to account No. CL-02/0208. The complainant did not accept the liability to pay the amount because the construction was still in progress. He also applied for separate electric connection for emergising his newly constructed portion on 25.1.1999 and deposited the requisite fee for getting electric connection. He sought the following relief in the complaint : (i) to set aside the impugned memos dated 18.1.1999 and to refund Rs. 4,185/- with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment; (ii) compensation of Rs. 10,000/-; (iii) costs of proceedings of Rs. 3,000/-; (iv) any other relief.

Opposite party appeared and filed written statement, wherein it was stated that the complainant had concealed the actual truth from the District Forum and had not stated the true facts, hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

In the reply, it was stated that in fact two electric meters vide A/c No. CL-02/0208 and A/c No. CL-02/0207 with their sanctioned load capacity of 1 K.W. each were running in the premises of the complainant, but on 8.1.1999 when the Additional S.D.O. of the concerned Sub-Division, checked the premises of the complainant, it was found that the complainant was running excess load on both the metres as on A/c No. CL-02/0208 the connected load was found as 3,860 K.W. and on A/c No. CL-02/0207 the connected load was found as 14.680 K.W. against the sanctioned load of 1 K.W. of each and the signatures of the complainant were also obtained on the report, which was prepared on the site and then the penalty of Rs. 4,185/- of A/c No. CL-02/0208 and Rs. 23,880/- of the A/c No. CL-02/0207 was imposed but the complainant had deposited only Rs. 4,185/- of A/c No. CL-02/0208. Instead of depositing Rs. 23,880/- of A/c No. CL-02/0207, the complainant had applied for a new connection in the name of Harminder Singh son of Davinder Singh for the load of 6.920 K.W. on 25.1.1999, which proved that when the complainant was caught red-handed for running the excess load, the complainant had applied for a new connection after the inspection of the premises and as such, the complainant had concealed the actual truth from the District Forum and had not stated the true facts. Hence the complaint of the complainant was liable to be dismissed.

AFTER hearing the arguments and after having gone through the documents on the file, District Forum accepted the complaint with costs and set aside the impugned penalty of Rs. 23,880/- and Rs. 4,185/-. It was further ordered that amount of Rs. 4,185/- be refunded to the complainant with 15 per cent interest per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Hence this appeal. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case as well as the order of the District Forum with their help.

AFTER discussing the matter at some length, District Forum accepted the complaint on the following grounds, which are narrated in its order. We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the order of the District Forum, which reads as under : "We are of the considered view that Shri Harkirat Singh, Additional S.D.O. has made a false report and penalty of Rs. 23,800/- of connection bearing Account No. CL-02/0207 and Rs. 4,185/- pertaining to Account No. CL-02/0208 were wrongly imposed by the opposite party. Report of the Additional S.D.O. is also false in view of the version given in Para No. 3 of the written reply and in the affidavit of Shri Harkirat Singh, Additional S.D.O., wherein it is said that when the premises of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite party on 8.1.1999, construction of the house was completed and all the electric equipments were affixed i.e., fans, lamps ampere plugs, one geyser and all the electric equipments were also in working conditions and the complainant was getting electric supply directly from his meter vide A/c No. CL-02/0207. It cannot be believed that fans were also running in the month of January, 1999 and all the plugs and points were being used by the complainant at the time of inspection done by the officials of the opposite party. Geyser could have been used but not fans in the month of January, 1999. Report of the Additional S.D.O. is, therefore, belied by his own conduct, when he says that all the electric equipments were affixed i.e., fans, lamps, ampere plugs and one geyser and all the electric equipments were in working condition. The S.D.O. not only gave a wrong report, but also acted irrationally and unreasonably and did not allow the complainant even a breathing time to apply for new connection."

We are of the considered view that the District Forum has not properly appreciated the factual position on the file. District Forum unnecessarily and without any cogent reason has held that Shri Harkirat Singh, Additional S.D.O. had made a false report and the penalty was wrongly imposed by the opposite party on the complainant. District Forum was of the view that the complainant should have been given a breathing time to apply for new connection. District Forum did not bother about the factual position despite the fact that the complainant was caught red-handed for running the excess load. It has been proved on the record that the complainant was running excess load on both the meters. On 8.1.1999, Additional S.D.O. of the concerned Sub-Division had checked the premises of the complainant and it was found that the complainant was running excess load on both the meters. On A/c No. CL-02/0208, the connected load was found as 3.860 K.W. and on A/c No. CL-02/0207 the connected load was found as 14.680 K.W. against the sanctioned load of 1 K.W. of each. It is also not disputed that the inspection report was prepared at the site and signatures of the consumer were also obtained on the inspection report. The veracity of this report is neither seriously challenged nor is there any evidence on the file, which could show that the report of the Additional S.D.O. was incorrect. It is not denied or proved on record that the signatures of the consumer were not obtained on the inspection report. The whole emphasis of the District Forum seems to be that as a new construction had been raised by the complainant and the newly created portion was energized, the complainant should have been given a breathing time to apply for new electric connection or for extension of the load. It was found as a fact that the complainant was found running excess load on both the earlier meters. If it was so, then the complainant was liable to bear the consequences, and he was liable to pay for the excess load used. Instead of finding fault with the conduct of the complainant, the District Forum has held the conduct of the inspecting official as bad, which finding is neither based upon any reason nor on any factual position on the record. After appreciating the evidence on the record we are certainly of the opinion that the complainant/consumer was found running excess load on both the meters, as mentioned above, and the penalty for excess load was rightly imposed by the opposite party on the complainant.

IN view of our discussion made above, the order of the District Forum dated 24.5.1999 is set aside and the appeal is allowed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 2,000/-. Consequently, the complaint also stands dismissed. Appeal allowed with costs.