Suresh Kumar Sahu vs CHIEF ENGINEER, CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 31.10.2002 in Complaint No. 86/2002 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called ''District Forum'' for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

UNDISPUTED facts stated in brief are : that complainant/appellant is the son of Chamarrai Sahu who had obtained electric connection Service No. 95/41/010901 from the respondent. The said consumer, father of the complainant expired and thereafter the complainant/appellant is utilising the said electric connection. It is also not in dispute that the Asstt. Engineer of the respondent/CSEB along with other persons inspected the said service connection installed at the residence of the complainant and prepared Panchanama as he found that there was theft of electricity. The respondent/CSEB due to theft of electricity as above issued bill dated 14.8.2002 raising a demand for Rs. 21,392/-. The amount of the bill has now been paid by the complainant/appellant. A police report about the incident was lodged. A charge-sheet was also filed against the complainant/appellant, who faced prosecution for theft of electricity in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajnandgaon. However, he has been acquitted in the said criminal case. The averments in the complaint was that the said demand of Rs. 21,392/- was illegally raised by the respondent/CSEB. It was submitted that spot inspection was conducted and Panchanama was prepared in the absence of complainant/appellant. It was averred by the complainant/appellant that he did not commit theft of electricity. It has further been averred that the demand as above was not justified hence the complainant/appellant is entitled to refund of the above amount.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent/CSEB. It was averred that the complainant had committed electricity theft as was found on spot inspection on 14.8.2002. Accordingly additional demand as per rules of the respondent/CSEB was raised. It was also averred that the report of the electricity theft was lodged by the respondent/CSEB, due to which the complainant had to face prosecution in the Criminal Court. According to the respondent the additional demand was fully justified and that the complainant/appellant was not entitled to any relief, as prayed by him.

THE learned District Forum held that the complainant/appellant committed theft of electricity. In view of above the additional demand of Rs. 21,392/- could not be said to be deficiency in service. It was accordingly held by the District Forum that the appellant was not entitled to any relief. THE complaint was accordingly dismissed. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant/appellant has been utilising the service connection for his domestic use. It was submitted that complainant''s residence is a small house, and that the complainant/appellant could not have used large number of light points, as mentioned in the Panchanama prepared on spot inspection. It was submitted that the Panchanama was falsely prepared, in the absence of complainant and the same could not have been made a basis for raising additional demand. It was, therefore, submitted that the complainant/appellant was entitled to refund of Rs. 21,392/- paid by him towards the bill dated 14.8.2002.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent/CSEB however submitted that the complainant/appellant was guilty of theft of electricity. Police report was lodged against the complainant/appellant and he also faced prosecution. It was further contended that the demand of additional bill, in the circumstances was justified and the complainant/appellant could not legitimately raise a grievance against the same. It was, therefore, submitted that the complaint was rightly dismissed by the District Forum. The main question that arises for consideration is as to whether the additional demand was justifiably raised by the respondent, on the ground of theft of electricity committed by the complainant/appellant. In the above context it may be noticed that the Panchanama prepared on spot inspection, by the officials of respondent/CSEB, clearly indicates that the complainant was committing theft of electricity and he had made direct connection by-passing the electricity meter. The said Panchanama is signed by the mother as also the wife of the complainant/appellant, besides by other witnesses. It may also be noticed that a police report was admittedly lodged and police has filed charge-sheet against the complainant/appellant for theft of electricity. There is ample material on record that during the proceedings in the said criminal case, the evidence was led to show that the complainant/appellant did commit theft of electricity. It is pertinent to note that the complainant/appellant has submitted on 16.8.2000 a hand-written application addressed to the Executive Engineer of the respondent/C.S.E.B. admitting his misdeeds of directly connecting the electricity line of his house and also praying that he may be permitted to pay the additional amount of the bill in easy instalments. He has also assured that he will not commit such a mistake in future. Unequivocal admission as above further reinforces the allegation of the respondent/C.S.E.B. that the appellant had committed theft of electricity. Thus, though the complainant/appellant was acquitted in the criminal trial giving him benefit of doubt, but it cannot be said that there was no justification for the respondents/C.S.E.B. to say and allege that the complainant committed theft of electricity, and thus it justifiably raised additional demand, as per their rules.

IN the foregoing circumstances, no exception could be made to the additional demand raised by the respondents/C.S.E.B. The appellant has miserably failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent C.S.E.B. The District Forum was justified in holding so. The said finding is affirmed.

THIS appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. The appellant shall bear his own costs and shall also pay that of the respondent which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. (Rupees one thousand) only. Appeal dismissed.