RAVINDER KUMAR NAYYAR Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 27.5.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) Brief facts, stated in the complaint are that the appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was a consumer of electricity and an electric meter was installed at his resident since 1990. He got installed three-phase electric connection with a sanctioned load of 7.8 K. W. The meter from the very first day did not show any consumption of electricity and he was being billed on the basis of load installed and the bills were paid as and when presented. On his request the meter was changed by the SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-respondent No.2 (opposite party No.2 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No.2) on 11.7.1991 and he started receiving the bills. On 18.2.1994, an alleged Task Force visited his premises to check the electric connection such as points of lights, fans, wall sockets and power sockets etc. in order to see as to whether the load within the sanctioned limit. The said Task Force again visited the premises of the complainant in his absence and put a sort of paper seal on the meter box. The meter was not even sealed. On 23.2.1994 at 9.45 a. m. opposite party No.2 along with 6/8 staff persons visited his premises and informed that the meter was defective and was being removed. He agreed to the removal of the meter. After the removal he had asked for the installation of the new meter. He was given a letter in Punjabi in which it was alleged that he was committing the theft of energy and as such he should make a payment of Rs.12,267/- as demanded. It was then alleged in the complaint that the complainant sought some time to make the payment but the opposite party refused to wait. Even his supply was disconnected. He had offered to make the payment through cheque but the opposite party refused and stated that unless the payment was made in cash or through draft the supply would remain disconnected, as such he had to pay the said amount. The said demand, according to the complainant, was illegally raised in order to harass him. No theft was ever committed. It has been mentioned that he was using 10.593 K. W. against the sanctioned load of 7.8 K. W. and that fresh test report be submitted. His load was within the sanctioned limit. No excess load was being used as such he was entitled to recover the amount of Rs.12,267/-, which was paid by him. It was then mentioned in the complaint that he was entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- for alleged allegation of theft of electricity levelled against him. In addition, he was entitled to recover Rs.75,000/- for mental tension and agony and another sum of Rs.75,000/- for alleged mental agony and tension for using excess load.

(3.) The opposite parties in their reply has taken preliminary objections that the complainant was not a consumer, the complaint was frivolous, the matter involved was of complicated nature and the complainant himself has admitted the theft and as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The installation of the meter and the payment of bills by the complainant was not disputed. It had been admitted that the Task Force had visited the premises of the complainant. According to the opposite party at the time of inspection of the Task Force the complainant was found consuming more electricity than the sanctioned load and on the basis of the same a demand was raised for deposit of Rs.12,267/-. The paper seal was fixed in the presence of the employee of the complainant. It was admitted that the demand was raised on the basis of theft of electricity committed by the complainant. According to the opposite party since the complainant was committing theft as such the bill in dispute was raised. The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.