PSEB Vs. SINGLA RICE AND GENERAL MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 30. 12. 2003 in complaint case No. 341 of 2002 : Singla Rice and General Mills v. Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) and Another.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the Complainant's case is that the Complainant runs a seasonal industry and has an electric connection No. EMS-955 for running his rice sheller. It is further stated that this rice sheller had been purchased by the Complainant a few years ago from one Inderjeet Singh who is OP No. 2 in the present complaint. Vide Memo No. 1882 dated 26. 2. 2000, OP No. 1 raised a demand of Rs. 1,91,974 against the Complainant on the allegations that it had found one BHP motor with 4 core cable directly running from LT Line, which amounted to theft of energy. The Complainant denied any checking by the OP in his presence or in the presence of any one of his representatives and also denied any use of unauthorised load. Further the case of the Complainant is that he was not given any opportunity to explain his case and the motor was allegedly being run by unauthorized Kundi connection and it did not belong to the Complainant as the same belong to Inderjeet Singh (OP No. 2) who had an electricity connection No. MF-43/646. According to the Complainant, therefore, action, if any, lies against Inderjeet Singh and not against him. Vide this complaint, the Complainant has prayed for quashing the demand along with adequate compensation and costs of litigation.

(3.) THE version of OP No. 1 is that the premises of the Complainant were checked on 24. 6. 2002 by the staff of OP No. 1 and spot checking report was prepared, which was duly signed by the representative of the Complainant and it was found that the Complainant was running 5 BHP motor directly with Kundi connection from LT Line and, as such, it was a case of theft of energy. Therefore, the demand was raised legally as per rules.