CHARAN SINGH Vs. P S E B CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the District Forum, dated 15.4.2002. Before the District Forum complainant, Charan Singh, now appellant, had challenged the demand notice issued by the P. S. E. B. in the sum of Rs.4780/- on the ground that the complainant had been found committing theft of electricity energy on 20.11.2000 by connecting PVC wire to the naked joint outside the meter. This was found by the Meter Inspector. Rs.4780/- was charged in the bill dated 16.4.2001 as sundry charges because of the alleged theft of energy. The P. S. E. B. while opposing the complaint, had also mentioned that the complainant was in the habit of committing theft of energy. The District Forum went into the point whether the complaint was maintainable. On the basis of judgment of this Commission in Appeal No.1375 of 2000, decided on 12.2.2002-M/s. Shiv Shakti Ice Factory V/s. P. S. E. B. , the District Forum held that the complaint was not maintainable and relegated the parties to seek remedy before the Civil Court. The complainant did file a civil suit before a Civil Court (Civil suit No.446 of 2002) before Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar but the same was dismissed on 31.1.2004. It was observed that: "however, in view of the fact that the plaintiff was having equally efficacious remedy of filing the appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, it is opined that the present suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form before this Court. Thus no relief of declaration can be given in the present suit when the plaintiff has failed to avail the equally efficacious remedy available with him and the present suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable against the defendants. Hence in the light of discussion above both these issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. " The complainant did not leave the matter there and filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar. The same was dismissed on 10.3.2005 upholding the judgment of the subordinate Civil Court. Naturally in these circumstances the complainant was in a dilemma; the District Forum said that he should go to Civil Court whereas the Civil Court should have rather filed an appeal before the State Consumer Commission against the judgment of the District Forum dated 15.4.2002. It was under these circumstances that the complainant filed the present appeal with an application for condonation of delay which has been dealt with separately and delay has been condoned. Without going into the question whether the District Forum was right in relegating the parties to the Civil Court or whether the Civil Court judgment was correct in view of the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported as 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 816-817, M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. V/s. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patialawe are of the view that the even if Civil Court has the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not barred. The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in addition to the other remedies available in other Statutes/c. P. C. In the aforesaid circumstances, we proceed to deal with the case on merits.

(2.) There was a charge of theft of energy against the appellant. In the register where the noting is made regarding the alleged theft there are no signatures of the complainant or any of his representatives. It is also not being suggested anywhere that the complainant or his representative had refused to sign in the register in which the report regarding the alleged theft of energy was recorded. Moreover, we find that the PVC wire which is stated to have been used for by-passing the electricity meter was also not taken into possession by the raiding party. Even in the report there is no mention that it was a 'kundi' connection. It has been held by this Commission as well as by the Haryana State Consumer Commission in the case reported as 1998 (2) CLT P.24, that charge of theft of energy is a criminal charge and a strict proof is required to establish the offence as is required before a Criminal Court. Of course, niceties/technicalities of Evidence Act regarding the production of evidence can be overlooked. However, the charge has to be proved. As observed above into the present case, neither there are signatures of the complainant or his representative on the report nor there is any collateral evidence of taking into possession the PVC wire allegedly used for stealing electricity energy. We are of the view that the P. S. E. B could not raise the demand on the bare report of the Meter Inspector which has not even been signed by the complainant. In these circumstances we allow this appeal as well as the complaint and quash the impugned demand notice dated 16.4.2001 in the sum of Rs.4780. It is made clear that it was in the bill dated 16.4.2001 that this amount was added as sundry charges. Rest of the bill would be payable, if not already paid. In case the amount of Rs.4,780 already stands deposited by the complainant, the same may be refunded to the complainant within one month of the receipt of this order. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.