SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER UHBVNL vs SURINDER PAL

-THIS revision is directed against the order dated 17. 11. 1999 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh modifying part of the order dated 12. 4. 1999 of a District Forum and reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 3,000. The District Forum had allowed the complaint quashing the penalty of Rs. 1,66,757 imposed by the petitioner and awarding Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the respondent.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Respondent/complainant purchased some land from one Lekh Raj Tyagi in the year 1996 and soon after he applied for transfer of the electricity connection which was installed on the land, in his name for running the tubewell. Electricity connection was transferred in the name of respondent with sanctioned limit of 7. 5 BHP. Respondent had been making payment on flat rate. On 22. 10. 1998, the vigilance team of the petitioner/opposite party visited the land of the respondent and on inspection, excess load of 12. 840 KVA was found connected, checking report was prepared which was got signed from two persons belonging to the respondent present at the time of inspection. A rough sketch plan of illegal surplus load wiring from the tubewell to the constructed residential portion was prepared and photographs also taken. Report of theft of electricity too was lodged with the local police. Notice dated 23. 10. 1998 was issued imposing penalty of Rs. 1,66,757 as per the Rules by the petitioner. This demand was challenged by the respondent by filing complaint which was contested by the petitioner. The operative portion of the District Forum''s order which is material, reads thus : "in the light of above said observation and finding we hold that the demand of penalty amount from the complainant is illegal and arbitrary and against the natural law of justice on the ground that the respondent has no right to demand such penalty amount from the complainant till the offence of theft is proved and thus it is directed to withdraw the notice dated 23. 10. 1998 vide which the penalty of Rs. 1,66,757 is demanded from the complainant. As regards the compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as well as the litigation expenses we direct the respondent to bear the burden of compensation and to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000. The parties are directed to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of order. "

In appeal by the petitioner the amount of compensation was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 3,000 and rest of the order was maintained.

Submission advanced by Mr. Bharat Singh for the petitioner was that the very basis of the order passed by District Forum which was affirmed by State Commission, is erroneous. It is a case of unauthorized use of connected load beyond the sanctioned limit by the respondent. Imposition of penalty amount of Rs. 1,66,757 was not dependent on proving of offence of theft against the respondent. While supporting the orders passed by Fora below, it was urged by Mr. Rajiv Kumar for the respondent that neither D. S. Gill was a member of raiding party nor petitioner had disclosed the name of two persons connected with the respondent who were allegedly present at the time of inspection. To be noted that along with additional affidavit dated 23. 1. 2007 of Om Prakash Dahiya, Sub-Divisional Officer, (O. P.) City Sub-Div. , UHBVNL/hseb, Ganaur, the petitioner has filed the copies of affidavit of D. S. Gill and checking report dated 22. 10. 1998 which were before the District Forum. In para No. 4 of the additional affidavit, it is averred that said D. S. Gill had checked the premises of the respondent on 22. 10. 1998. In Para No. 4 of the affidavit of D. S. Gill, it is stated that the Vigilance Cell of the petitioner had visited the tubewell/premises of the respondent in the presence of two persons belonging to the respondent who also signed the checking report. Sanctioned load of the tubewell of respondent is 7. 5 BHP. The vigilance staff during checking found the connected load of 7. 5 BHP + 12. 840 KVA and this excess load was illegally connected with the connection of the tubewell. It is further stated that the checking staff prepared a rough sketch of the connected load and the connecting wires from the tubewell to the constructed residential portion of the respondent and copy of rough sketch is annexed with the affidavit. It is also stated that the line and pole of the respondent were in working order and there had not been any damage to the line and pole. It is pertinent to mention that in the complaint, the respondent has admitted the checking of his place by the officials of petitioner on 22. 10. 1998 in his absence. Aforesaid additional affidavit of Om Prakash Dahiya as also affidavit of D. S. Gill go to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that D. S. Gill was one of the members of vigilance team who checked the premises of the respondent on 22. 10. 1998. In aforesaid checking report, the details of excess load of 12. 840 KVA have been given. In view of this report and the affidavit of D. S. Gill it is further proved beyond any shadow of doubt that excess load of 12. 840 KVA was found connected for use in the residential portion. It is also proved that the line and pole of the respondent were in working order at the time of checking on 22. 10. 1998. It is not in dispute that for the sanctioned load of 7. 5 HP for tubewell, the charges were being paid on flat rate. Petitioner was, thus, fully justified in imposing the penalty and demanding Rs. 1,66,757 by issuing notice dated 23. 10. 1998 to the respondent. As rightly pointed out on behalf of petitioner the very basis for quashing this demand by the District Forum was legally erroneous. Orders passed by Fora below are, therefore, to be set aside not being tenable in law.

ACCORDINGLY, while allowing revision, aforesaid orders passed by Fora below are set aside and complaint dismissed. Respondent will pay Rs. 20,000 by way of cost to the petitioner. R. P. allowed.