PSEB vs SINGLA RICE AND GENERAL MILLS

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.

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. 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.

The version of OP No. 2 is that he had sold his rice sheller to the Complainant reserving his right to use one motor for irrigation of his agricultural land around the rice sheller and the electric connection of the said motor was not part of electric installation of the rice sheller as it was connected with different line, pole and this connection was in the name of his son. It has been admitted that the motor was being run by OP No. 2 and not by rice sheller. After filing his written reply, OP No. 2 was proceeded against ex parte.

THE learned District Forum having perused Exhibit C-2 i. e. checking report observed that it had been signed by one Gian Chand as representative of the Complainant and the checking official found one 5 BHP motor directly connected to a LT Line by 4 core cable by the use of an unauthorized Kundi connection. It further recorded that it is mentioned in the report that the unauthorized motor was included in the rice sheller load. In the view of the learned District Forum, it was unbelievable that when Inderjeet Singh (OP No. 2) had already sold the rice sheller to the Complainant, he kept one motor in the rice mill premises for his use. Further, the learned District Forum has observed that there is no written contract/agreement between Inderjeet Singh and the Complainant evidencing this right of use of one 5 BHP motor to irrigate his land, then placing of his motor in the premises of the Complainant is beyond comprehension. Therefore, the learned District Forum held the view that the story that 5 BHP motor belongs to Inderjeet Singh and he was using it is nothing but a concocted defence taken by the Complainant with connivance of Inderjeet Singh. The learned District Forum has also found a nexus between the Complainant and OP No. 2 because OP No. 2 absented himself after filing his written statement, which as per the learned District Forum, was typed on the same typewriter, which has been used for typing the complaint. The above notwithstanding, the learned District Forum held the view that the motor was unauthorisedly connected with LT Line at the time of checking and that amounted to theft of energy. The OPs while calculating the penalty had taken into account the full sanctioned load of the Complainant, which was 67. 540 KW, which also included the light load of 5. 622 KW. In view of the learned District Forum, since at the time of checking, the load meant for running the rice sheller i. e. 61. 218 KW stood disconnected and only light load of 5. 622 KW as being provided to the Complainant, the OP was only entitled to take into account the load of 5. 622 KW for computing the penalty. In this view of the matter, the learned District Forum partly accepted the complaint and quashed the impugned demand. It, however, directed the OP to issue a fresh demand on account of theft of energy on the basis of light load i. e. 5. 622 KW. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned District Forum, this appeal had been filed by OP No. 1-PSEB before the Punjab State Commission and the same has now been transferred to this Commission under the orders of Hon''ble National Commission. Brig. B. S. Taunque (Retd.), Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellant/op whereas Sh. P. K. Jain, Advocate represented the Respondent/complainant.

WE have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that this being a case of theft of energy falls beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it being a criminal case is required to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. In this connection, we wish to clarify that the case in hand is not regarding the criminal aspect of the theft of energy. It is with regard to the award of penalty. The question before the Fora is whether the penalty imposed upon the Complainant is as per law or not? and this question is very much within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because any improper or illegal imposition of penalty amounts to deficiency in service. As stated earlier, it has been proved beyond doubt on record through Exhibit A-2 i. e. the checking report that there was 5 BHP motor directly connected to LT Line by 4 core cable in the premises of the Complainant. Thus, there is no doubt, in our minds, that the Complainant is liable to pay for this theft of energy as per the rules and regulations. Now the sole question that needs to be decided by us is whether the total connected load of the premises is to be taken into account while computing the penalty or it is to be based on the supplied connected load at the time of occurrence? Whereas the contention of the Appellant is that it had rightly calculated the penalty keeping in view the total connected load of 67. 540 KW, the contention of the Complainant is that since only 5. 622 KW was being supplied at that point in time as light load, the computation of the penalty should be on that basis. The total reliance of the Appellant is on Exhibit A-3 with regard to levying the penalty on the basis of sanctioned load. However, Exhibit A-3 does not clarify that in the case of seasonal industry like the Complainant, which load is to be taken as the sanctioned load for calculating the penalty. In our considered view, the sanctioned load to be taken into account for the calculation of penalty is that amount of load of electricity, which the OP was releasing to the Complainant at the time of occurrence of the incident. It cannot, in our considered view, penalize the Complainant on the basis of the total sanctioned load, which it provides to the Complainant during the season when the rice sheller is in full operation. In this case, it is the admitted stand of the learned Counsel for the OP that it was only providing light load to the Complainant amounting to 5. 622 KW. Thus, we find no irregularity in the learned District Forum directing the OP to calculate the penalty on the basis of the same.

IN this view of the matter, we find that the impugned order is just, fair and legal and it does not require any interference. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.

COPIES of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.