AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COMPLAINT Case No. 104/92 filed by Mohd. Zahir complainant against the Asstt. Engineer (Distribution) RSEB, Gangapur City was dismissed by the District Forum, Sawaimadhopur by its order dated 25.8.1993 and, therefore, the complainant has come in appeal.
THE District Forum, Sawaimadhopur has held that the Asstt. Engineer (Vigilance) had inspected the premises of the complainant and had found that the complainant had by means of PVC wires illegally taken direct supply of electricity from LT line and thus he was committing offences under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In the inspection memo it was also mentioned by the Asstt. Engineer (Vigilance) that previously the Jr. Engineer, RSEB, in the demand notice sent to the complainant on 18.3.1991, had required the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000/-as compounding fees of theft. On these grounds, the complainant was found not entitled to any relief and the complaint was dismissed. So far as the complainant''s case was concerned, it was mentioned by him in the complaint that in order to earn his livelihood he had purchased a welding machine for Rs. 2,860/-on 7.11.1989 from Star & Co., New Delhi and had made an application on 17.11.1989 to the Asstt. Engineer, Mahaveerji, Distt. Sawaimadhopur and had received on 17.1.1991 a demand note of Rs. 233/-. Before he deposited this amount of Rs. 233/-he received a letter dated 7.3.1991 from the Asstt. Engineer (Distribution) RSEB in which the Asstt. Engineer mentioned that there was not available any welding set of 1 or 2 H.P., and, therefore, the complainant should apply for electricity connection for 3 H.P. or 5 H.P. welding set. The complainant was also required to attend in the office of the Asstt. Engineer within ten days and to make an application in writing so that the electricity connection may be given to the complainant. It was also mentioned that if the complainant will not attend the office within ten days and will not make the application as mentioned above, his application for electricity connection will be dismissed. The complainant states that he gave his consent to take electricity connection of 5 H.P. and thereupon the Asstt. Engineer issued demand notice dated 18.3.1991 where under the complainant was required to deposit a total amount of Rs. 680/-which he deposited on 16.4.1991. He also submitted the ''L'' form, but the electricity connection was not given by the opposite party and he, therefore, filed the complaint before the District Forum, Sawaimadhopur on 1.5.1992 praying that the opposite party may be directed to release the electricity connection and pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 39,330/-as compensation on account of economic loss caused to him
Had the complainant been so innocent as he has posed to be in his complaint, he would have been entitled to relief. However, that is not so. It might be that the complainant purchased a welding set on 7.11.1989 for opening a shop and doing welding work for earning his livelihood. However, the complainant had not produced any evidence whatsoever to show that he had applied on 17.11.1989 i.e. after ten days of the purchase of the welding set for electric connection and that he received a demand note on 17.1.1991 for Rs. 233/-. No such application dated 17.11.1989 or its copy was produced by the complainant and even the demand note of Rs. 233/-dated 17.1.1991 was not produced. The letter of the Asstt. Engineer (Distribution), Mahaveerji dated 7.3.191 would go to show that it was sent by the Asstt. Engineer to the complainant in reply to the Application No. 214 (non-domestic supply) dated 4.3.1991 made by the complainant. Thus from this letter dated 7.3.1991 of the Asstt. Engineer, it only appears that the application for electricity connection was made by the complainant on 4.3.1991 and not on 17.11.1989. The Asstt. Engineer issued a demand notice on 18.3.1991 for 5 KW power connection for the amount of Rs. 680/-. This amount was deposited by the complainant on 16.4.1991. It is, however, worthy to be noted that in this very demand note dated 18.3.1991 it was mentioned at serial No. 9 that the complainant had taken direct connection from the LT line and he was found committing theft of electricity and, therefore, he was also required to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000/-as compounding fee for his committing theft. It was only in order to hide the theft which the complainant was committing by directly connecting the PVC wire with LT line that the complainant falsely alleged in the complaint that he had made an application for electricity connection on 17.11.1989 and had received a demand note of Rs. 233/-on 17.1.1991. As already stated, neither the copy of the application dated 17.11.1989 and nor the demand note dated 17.1.1991 for Rs. 233/-was produced by the complainant. The natural inference is since the purchase of the welding set on 7.11.1989, the complainant was committing theft of electricity and it was only when the theft was detected in March, 1991 that he made an application for electricity connection. Soon after the making of the application, demand note was issued for Rs. 680/-and in that demand note it was mentioned that the complainant has further to pay Rs. 5,000/-as compounding fee for the theft. Since this amount had not been paid the electricity connection was not released. The complainant continued committing theft. The Asstt. Engineer (Vigilance) made inspection on 16.3.1992 and then he seized the PVC wire. Provisional assessment of Rs. 23,430/-was made and a notice was given to the complainant on 13.4.1992 for depositing the provisionally assessed amount of Rs. 23,430/-. This pain of demand of Rs. 23,430/-lead the complainant to file the present complaint on 1.5.1992. The complainant having suppressed the above facts and it having been shown by the RSEB that the complainant was committing theft for two to three years and did not deposit the assessed amount, there was no question of award any compensation for economic loss to a thief. A proven thief has no right to come before the Consumer Forum to claim compensation for economic loss on false grounds. Any person who comes to Consumer Forum should come with clean hands. The hands of the complainant were dirty and were not clean. The District Forum rightly dismissed to complaint.
THE appeal has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed. THE complainant will pay Rs. 500/-as costs to the opposite party of this appeal. Appeal dismissed. ___________