Complainant filed on 5-6-2009
Compliant disposed on 20-12-2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::AT:: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K.DEVI PRASAD B.SC.,LL.B. PRESIDENT
SMT.E.LAXMI M.A.,LL.M,PGDCA (CONSUMER AWARENESS) MEMBER
SRI K.CHANDRA MOHAN RAO B.COM.,LL.B. MEMBER
MONDAY, THE TWENTY DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 93 OF 2009
Between:
- Mohammad Musthafa, S/o. Mohd. Ibrahim, Age 80 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. H.No.6-2-59, Karkhanagadda, (Durgammagadda), Karimnagar.
- Mohammad Abbas Sami, S/o. Mohd. Musthafa, Age 48 years, Occ: Deputy Mayor, Municipal Corporation, R/o. H.No.6-2-59, Karkhanagadda, (Durgammagadda), Karimnagar.
…Complainants
AND
- The Superintending Engineer (Operation), N.P.D.C.L., A.P. Transco, Karimnagar.
- The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), Karimnagar Town, N.P.D.C.L., AP. TRANSCO, Karimnagar.
- The Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operation), Karimnagar Town, N.P.D.C.L., AP. TRANSCO, Karimnagar.
- The Asst. Engineer, D.P.E.II, NPDCL, Nakkalagutta, Warangal.
…Opposite parties
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on16-11-2010, in the presence of Sri K.Sudhakar Rao and K. Prakash, Advocates for complainant and Sri B.Venkateshwar and H.Chakradhar and M.D.Dasthagirikhan, Advocates for opposite parties, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum passed the following:
:: O R D E R ::
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties not to disconnect the service connection by setting aside the assessment notice Dt: 23.5.2009 issued by opposite parties and pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant no.1 is the consumer of opposite parties since 1977 bearing Service Connection No. 4163 situated at Karkhanagadda locality of Karimnagar Town, and complainant no.2 is the son of complainant no.1. The complainants are paying the CC Charges regularly without committing any default and at no point of time there are no allegations of malpractices or tampering with the meter by the complainants or their family members. The average consumption of the complainants never exceeded the required units.
3. On 7.5.2009 opposite party no.3 and no.4 inspected the service connection of the complainants on the complaint made by third person that the complainants have tampered the meters. The Inspecting Officers took away the meter to produce it before Meter Testing Laboratory to ascertain the tampering. On the same day they conducted test and submitted the report stating that “two numbers of M.R.T. seals were found intact and that no foreign material was found inside the meter, filed the allegation is that there is a gap between meter cover and meter glass due to which, an X-ray film can be easily inserted in the gap and some scratches were observed on the meter”. Infact at the time of inspection no X-ray film nor any thing was found. Inspite of such clear report regarding non-embezzlement of the meter, the opposite parties served an assessment notice on complainant no.2 demanding him to pay a sum of Rs.31,527/- towards the amount assessed by them and also to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compounding fee, failing which criminal action will be taken against him and the service connection will be disconnected.
4. After receipt of the said notice the complainant has submitted reply on 2.6.2009 requesting them to drop further proceedings. On 4.6.2009 at about 4.00PM the opposite parties visited the complainant’s house and tried to disconnect the same, but the complainants resisted them not to disconnect.
5. The complainant no.2 is the Corporator for Division no.7 and is functioning as Deputy Mayor of Municipal Corporation for the last four years and his wife is the Corporator for Division no.8. To lower his prestige in the society, the opposite parties have leveled false allegations against him and made the news publish in the News Papers. As such issuing of notice itself constitute deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, hence filed this case.
6. Opposite party no.3 filed his Counter Affidavit denying all the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that the complainant no.1 is their customer as the service connection stand in the name of the complainant no.1. As such there is no relation between the complainant no.2 and opposite parties. Thus the case suffers from misjoinder of unnecessary parties. Taking advantage of his position as Deputy Mayor of Karimnagar, he is obstructing the duties of the opposite party’s workmen. The opposite parties several times informed the complainant that the meter consumption is not being properly recording. On the complaint of a third person, the opposite party no.3 & 4 conducted raid over the premises of complainant no.1’s house and found that the glass fitted to the meter was slided aside and there was a gap to enable the inserting of X-ray film between the meter and glass though the seals of the meter were in tact. As such opposite party no.4 has booked a case of provisional assessment order vide case no. Lr.no.ADE/OP/KNR-TOWN F.No.4196/D.no.241 of 2009 Dt: 23.5.2009 and seized the meter and sent it for M.R.T. Basing on the M.R.T. Report, opposite party no.3 booked a case and assessed the amount as Rs.31,520/-. Accordingly opposite party no.4 issued a P.A. Notice to the consumer for payment of assessment amount duly giving some time to pay the assessed amount. As the complainant did not pay any amount, the said service connection was disconnected. As per the directions of the Forum, the consumer had deposited only ¼th amount i.e. Rs.8,632/- on 9.6.2009. Now the complainants have to pay the balance due amount. Now the service is live and there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of opposite parties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
7. Opposite party no.1, 2 & 4 have adopted the Counter Affidavit filed by opposite party no.3.
8. The complainant filed his Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and the documents filed by them are marked as Ex.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the office copy of representation submitted to opposite parties Dt: 2.6.2009. Ex.A2 is the Demand Notice (3 in no.) issued by opposite parties. Ex.A3 is the original receipts (3 in no.) issued by opposite parties. Ex.A4 is the copy of Provisional Assessment order Dt: 23.5.2009 issued by opposite parties. Ex.A5 is the original Notice issued by Inspector of Police, Vigilance & APTS Karimnagar.
9. The opposite party no.3 filed his Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the counter and no documents are marked on behalf them.
10. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
11. A perusal of the records and documents reveals that the complainants are the consumers of electricity under Connection no.4163 since 1977 and they used to pay electricity charges regularly.
12. Ex.A2 shows that their consumption for March 2009, April 2009 and May 2009 stood at Rs.393/-, Rs.435/- and Rs.266/- respectively which works out to monthly average of Rs.365/-. But on 7.5.2009 opposite party no.4 conducted inspection of the said meter and suspected it to have been tampered with, based on which a case was booked under Case No.ADE/OP/KAR-TOWN/F.NO.4196/D.NO.241 OF 2009 Dt: 23.5.2009 and said meter was sent for MRT (for testing). The AE –LT Meters tested it and established that the meter’s consumption was not proportionate to the connected load of the consumer, attributing it to theft of energy. Opposite party no.3 booked a case of theft and assessed the loss at Rs.31,527/- whereupon opposite party no.4 issued PA Notice to the complainant/consumer vide Ex.A5 demanding payment of Rs.31,527/- under assessment and CC Charges + Rs.3,000/- towards charges under compounding offence totaling to Rs.34,527/-.
13. Aggrieved at this heavy demand, the complainant filed this complaint on 5.6.2009 praying for dismissal of this claim pleading innocence, repelling all the allegations of opposite parties. Opposite parties in their counter/ PA affirmed all their allegation of theft of energy and their demand of Rs.34,527/-.
14. Meanwhile the consumer/complainant filed I.A.No.120 of 2009 on 5.6.2009 praying for Injunction restraining the respondents from disconnecting the service connection until disposal of this complaint.
15. Considering the hardship likely to be caused to the petitioners in the event of disconnection, the I.A. was allowed and the respondents were directed not to disconnect the service connection under the said meter on deposit of ¼th of the demanded amount of Rs.34,527/- by 10.6.2009 vide orders Dt: 5.6.2009.
16. But on the same day of issuance of Interim Order the opposite parties disconnected service leading to filing of PP No.33 of 2009 Dt: 23.6.2009 along with receipt for Rs.8,632/- in respect of payment of ¼ th of the demanded amount praying for restoration of power connection. It was allowed and orders were issued on 23.6.2009 directing the opposite parties/respondent to restore their service connection to meter no.B4163 and report compliance on 29.6.2009.
17. Now coming into the facts of the CC we observe that the allegation of theft of energy was framed against complainants merely on the strength of suspicion arising from the fact that there was a gap between the glass and the meter facilitating the insertion of X-ray film and that there were scratches on the meter disc as mentioned in the inspection report Ex.A4 which reads as “incriminating points, at the time of inspection the meter NRT seal bits found untampered. The meter referred to NRT lab for testing”.
18. As per MET Report (1) There is gap between meter cover and meter glass. X-ray film can easily move in the gap. (2) Scratches were observed on meter disc. (3) The meter consumption is not proportionate to the connected load of the consumer. Thus the consumer intentionally suppressed the meter reading and dishonestly indulged in theft of energy.
19. Based on that report the total amount was assessed on Rs.31,527/- and accordingly PA Notice was issued to the complainant demanding payment of Rs.34,527/- including charges under compound offence.
20. But the opposite parties failed to prove accusation of theft of energy by the complainant red-handedly. Opposite party’s allegation is based on suspicion that X-ray film can be inserted through the gap in the meter glass.
21. There is a probability that the meter had gap in the glass with scratches on the disc at the time of supply on account of manufacturing defect which might have remained unnoticed for long since the day it was fixed. One cannot be accused of indulging in pilferage of energy without reliable evidence basing on assumptions and presumptions. More over his earlier electricity bills filed under Ex.A2 show that his average consumption is Rs.365/- i.e. 140 units per month against permissible load of 280 units. Merely because the consumption is low it cannot be attributed to pilferage unless and until it is proved beyond doubt. This fact cannot be a ground for leveling allegations and demanding hefty amount from the consumer/complainant by way of compensation and charges under offence. As such opposite parties are held deficient in service. A decision reported in CTJ December 2010 at page 193 and Page 20 in a case Punjab State Electricity Board and Others Vs Assa Singh, it was held by Hon’ble Punjab state Commission that “whenever the meter reader of the Electricity Company visits the premises of the Consumer for meter reading, he is also duty bound to examine if the meter is running in a normal manner and not tampered with”…..
22. Taking into account Pros and Cons of the case we opine that the amount demanded is on high side and arbitrary. As such we reduce the amount demanded by opposite parties to ¼th.i.e. Rs.8,632/- applying the principle of equity and natural justice. Since the complainant already deposited the said amount by means of challan Dt: 8.6.2009 in compliance with the orders in I.A.no.120 of 2009 of CC No.93 of 2009 Dt: 5.6.2009 the opposite parties will accept the same against the amount demanded vide notice Ex.A5.
23. In the result the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to retain the amount of Rs.8,632/- already deposited by the complainant as payment against the total demanded amount of Rs.34,527/- waving the balance and to replace a defect free new meter if necessary at the cost of consumer within a month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to Stenographer (DUR) and transcribed by her, after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 20th day of December, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE
FOR COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 is the office copy of representation submitted to opposite parties Dt: 2.6.2009.
Ex.A2 is the Demand Notice (3 in no.) issued by opposite parties.
Ex.A3 is the original receipts (3 in no.) issued by opposite parties.
Ex.A4 is the copy of Provisional Assessment order Dt: 23.5.2009 issued by opposite parties.
Ex.A5 is the original Notice issued by Inspector of Police, Vigilance & APTS Karimnagar.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: -NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
