TARA SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2014-4-1
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on April 02,2014

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Baldev Singh Sekhon, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "District Forum"), vide which his complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties having a domestic electric connection, bearing account No. P33BF300792H with a sanctioned load of 3 KW. On 25.11.2010, the officials of the PSPCL handed over memo bearing No. 2074 dated 25.11.2010 to him in which a demand of Rs. 20,692 was raised. He approached the officials of the PSPCL but they did not pay any heed to his request to withdraw the same. It was pleaded that the demand raised was illegal, violative of the principle of natural justice and against the rules and regulations of the opposite parties inasmuch as no checking of electricity connection was ever carried out nor any explanation of the complainant was called before imposing the penalty. This order of assessment was challenged by him before the District Forum.
(2.) THE opposite parties filed written reply pleading therein that the demand notice issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 could not have been challenged before the District Forum as it has no jurisdiction. The electricity connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the PSFCL on 11.11.2010 during which it was found that he was committing theft of electricity by directly taping the service line by bye -passing the meter. The said checking was carried out in the presence of the complainant who signed the checking report; copy of which was delivered to him at site. Accordingly, notice under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was issued in which a demand of Rs. 20,692 was raised and Rs. 9,000 were added as compounding fee. The complainant failed to prefer objections against the said notice before the competent authority. The District Forum, after going through the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the complaint.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order, the complainant has come up in appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.