Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President; Mr. Jasbir Singh &
Mrs. D.K. Bhamrah, Members
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD—Appellant
versus
JASBIR SINGH—Respondent
Appeal No. 210 of 2000—Decided on 22.5.2002
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. D.P. Singh, Advocate.
Allegations of theft of energy must be substantiated with proper evidence such as an inspection report, and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of such allegations.
Headnote:
Penalty - Electricity Theft - The court held that the allegations of theft of energy by the complainant could not be substantiated as no inspection report was prepared at the spot, and the opposite party had planted a false complaint of theft against the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant had his electric connection load enhanced and was making regular payments. However, he could not make payment for a specific period due to non-receipt of bills, and an illegal penalty was imposed on him, leading to a complaint filed before the District Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant with interest, which was upheld by the court. The court found that the allegations of theft of energy by the complainant could not be substantiated and that the opposite party had planted a false complaint of theft against the complainant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the imposition of an illegal penalty on the complainant, allegations of theft of energy, and the validity of the complaint filed by the opposite party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of an inspection report and failure to produce consumption data to prove theft of energy, along with the admission that no inspection report was prepared by the Junior Engineer, led to the conclusion that the opposite party had planted a false complaint of theft against the complainant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 500.
Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—It’s an appeal against the order dated 27.12.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).
2. 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.”
3. 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.
4. The complainant had filed rejoinder wherein he had reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and had denied the version of the opposite party.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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, , and PSEB and Another
