SDO told to compensate complainant

Chandigarh, December 23
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I has directed SDO, sub-division office, electricity department, Sector 40-B, to pay Rs 5,000 as litigation charges to a resident of Maloya village near Chandigarh.

The forum comprising president PD Goel and members Rajinder Singh Gill and Madanjit Kaur Sahota also quashed the sundry charges raised in the bills from the month of October, 2010, to June, 2011, as the respondents failed to prove any evidence.

The complainant, Lakhmir Singh, submitted that in the month of September, 2010, the said tubewell did not work due to some defect and he installed a new tubewell about 60m away from the old one, and thereafter, requested the opposite party to transfer the connection on October 1, 2010, so that he could use the new tubewell. However, on October 7, he received a provisional assessment letter with regard to illegal demand of Rs 42,195 on account of theft of energy. The opposite party again sent bill dated November 9, 2010, in which the amount of Rs 42,602 was added as sundry charges. He received another bill dated December 10, 2010, for Rs 47,148.

The counsel for the opposite party averred that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked on September 30, 2010, and the complainant was found using “kundi connection”. Accordingly an amount of Rs 42,195 was charged on account of average for the period April 30, 2009, to September 30, 2010, at the rate of Rs 882 per unit, (per month) at domestic rate as the tubewell connection was being used for cattle shed as well as for service station. The complainant was advised to apply on proper A & A Form, along with proof of ownership, and also to pay the pending electricity bills for shifting the meter. However, he shifted the meter without any approval from the opposite party. It was further averred that the amount of Rs 49,187 was still outstanding, which the complainant had not paid.

The forum further observed that the report given by the checking officer had not been supported by any affidavit. “The report loses its evidential value and is not sufficient to prove that the complainant committed any theft.”