Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/788/2010

A.V.V.N.Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Moola Ram s/o Sadula Ram - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Sharma

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 788/2010

 

Managing Director, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Ajmer & ors.

Vs.

Moola Ram s/o Sh.Sadula Ram r/o Sanik Basti, Nagaur.

 

Date of Order 10.4.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka - Member

 

Mr.R.K.Sharma counsel for the appellants

Mr.Jogesh Joshi counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 22.02.2010 passed by the learned DCF Nagaur by which it ordered for cancellation of demand of Rs. 3241/- levelled against

2

 

the consumer in pursuance of the VCR prepared on 26.8.2009. The respondents got the meter of the consumer tested from M/s. Data Jan Power Services, Ajmer who reported on 17.4.2009 that meter was running 53.79% slow. After this report an investigation was conducted by the vigilance team on 26.8.2009 and a VCR was prepared. It is reported that on inspection meter was found tempered with and demand of Rs. 3241/- was raised on account of slow running of the meter. Against this a complaint was filed before the learned DCF Nagaur who allowed the complaint dropping the demand against the consumer.

 

The learned counsel for the appellants has argued before us that the complainant had complained of the defective meter and meter was duly got checked from M/s.Data Jan Power, Ajmer and on the basis of this report an additional demand of actual consumption was raised. On 26.8.2009 when vigilance team inspected the consumer's site, they found the meter was tempered with. He has argued that complainant is supposed to pay the amount for the actual consumption while his meter was found defective and the appellants are entitled for the amount of actual consumption.

 

The learned counsel for the respondent has argued before

3

 

us that the report prepared by M/s. Data Jan Power, Ajmer no where shows that meter had been tempered with or any seals were broken and the report prepared by the vigilance team on 26.8.2009 is not reliable. In fact no team had inspected the complainant's site, no witnesses were called and even the complainant was not informed of this inspection. This report was prepared by them in their office allegedly as a vengenance.

 

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.

 

We find that the report prepared by M/s. Data Jan Power is not reliable. The meter was not removed for checking and was not sent to Ajmer. Who had come to inspect the meter at site is not clear, no affidavit of the person has been filed who checked the meter at the site. The affidavit of Nand Kishore Meena does not state that he went to site with necessary apparatus to check the meter. His affidavit is not believable. In his affidavit he checked the meter of the consumer whose a/c no. is 1336-0024 while the account number of the complainant is 1720-0024. Nand Kishore has not given any meter number. Report No. 115366/14615 dated 17.4.09 is also not on record. Nand Kishore checked the meter on 17.4.09 without removing the meter and A.En. states that he went

4

 

on site on 26.8.09. On the basis of test report for four months the A.En. did not have the time to persue the report. Whether it was possible for him to check the meter while it was installed at consumer's house is also not clear. How could he arrive at a conclusion that meter was running 53.79% slow is also not mentioned in the report. What apparatus was used to arrive at this conclusion is not clear. Similarly on 26.8.2009 the vigilance team had found the meter tempered with while the report of Nand Kishore says only terminal cover seal was missing. Thus, we find that the report prepared on 26.8.2009 lack confidence and the demand raised against the consumer is not justified.

 

In view of this we do not want to interfere with the order passed by the learned DCF and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka ) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm