ORDER

Paramjit Singh (President)

1. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the complainant Charan Singh since deceased had got installed electric connection bearing No.X160P240107X at his residence in village Gidder Pindi, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar and he had using the said connection. After his death, the complainant had been actually

-2-

making the payment of the bills.

2. That in the month of March, 2009, he saw that there is some defect in the said electric connection, so he moved an application dated 16.3.2009 with the opposite parties to replace the defective meter. He deposited the amount for replacement of said meter vide receipt No. 392 dated 16.3.2009. Inspite of deposit of the said amount, the opposite parties charged the meter rent for the subsequent months which is clearly a negligent work of the opposite parties.

3. That thereafter, the complainant received the bill after change of the meter vide bill dated 9.10.2009 wherein the consumption of 541 units have been shown. Thereafter, he received another bill dated 7.12.2009 showing 589 units as consumption.

4. To the utter surprise of complainant, he received next bill dated 7.2.2010 in which also 502 units have been shown to be consumed, but was surprised to see that the respondents have wrongly, illegally, arbitrarily and without authority included Rs.27097/- in the heading of sundry charges inspite of the fact that the respondents cannot include any sundry charges in the current bill as per the own Sales Regulations of the Board. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service, unfair trande practice and negligent on the part of respondents. Hence the present complaint.

5. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising as many as three preliminary objections by refuting all the allegations made in the complaint that the complaint is not maintainable,

-3-

the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint. A bilateral agreement took place between Charan Singh and PSEB for release of energy. Moreover, the complainant has never informed the respondents that his father has died and nor submitted A & A form nor completed other formalities for change of name. Hence the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint. The meter of the consumer was changed on 12.5.2009 vide MCO No. 66/70292 dated 17.3.2009 as per report of meter reader The removed meter was packed and sealed in the presence of complainant and he signed the paper seal affixed. The new meter was installed with initial reading 0002 No.1125189. The sub division vide memo No. 541 dated 27.5.2009 informed consumer to remain present in M.E. Lab, Kartarpur on 3.6.2009 at 10 A.M. where his meter will be tested by the M.E. Lab but the consumer did not turn up. So again consumer was informed vide memo No. 808 dated 27.7.2009 to remain present in M.E. Lab, Kartarpur on 5.8.2009 at 10 A.M. for testing the meter, but again consumer did not come present. So again consumer was informed vide memo No.1105 dated 13.11.2009 to remain present in M.E. Lab, Kartarpur on 16.11.2009 at 10 A.M. for testing the meter, but again consumer did not turn up. Again consumer was informed vide memo No.1287 dated 31.12.2009 to remain present in M.E. Lab, Kartarpur on 7.1.2010 at 10 A.M. for testing the meter, but again consumer did not turn up. So the concerned J.E. took the packed and sealed meter with other meters vide challan No. 44 to M.E. Lab, Kartarpur The meter was took out from the card board after breaking the seals in

-4-

M.E. Lab by the team comprising AAE Sub Division No2 Sultanpur Lodhi, SDO M.E. Lab, Kartarpur, A.A.E. .E. Lab, Kartarpur and found that consumer has tampered with the internal mechanism of meter after tampering both the M & T seals and clump, so that meter may not show the actual consumption and thus it was clear cut case of theft of energy. The team noted their observations at page No.20 and signed the checking report. The team again repacked the meter and handed over Balbir Singh A.J.E. along with report for taking further action by the sub division.

So the sub division vide memo No. 16 dated 17.1.2010 asked the complainant to deposit Rs.26683/- as charges of theft of energy as per formula LXDXHXF Here L is load, which is 5.14 KW, D is days, which are 30, H is hour, which are 8 and F is factor which is30%. So total units per month calculated is = 5.14 X 30X8X30% = 370 units. Bi-monthly units comes out 749 units and charges of 740 units by applying appropriate tariff are Rs2622/- and by multiplying it with 2, SOP comes out Rs5244/- and E.D. is Rs.524/-, so total amount per bi month comes out Rs.5768/-. Calculating it for one year = 5768X6= Rs34608/-. During this period, the complainant deposited Rs7925/-, so complainant is liable to deposit Rs.26683/- (Rs34608/-Rs7925). The complainant is liable to pay the said amount. The complainant did not respond to the said notice, so this amount was rightly added along with difference of tariff in the next bill under sundry charges column. Thus, there is no deficiency in service in charging the amount from the complainant.

6. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence

-5-

affidavit of complainant Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C3 along with documents Ex.C2, Ex.C5 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence.

7. On the other hand the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.R15 to Ex.R19 along with document Ex.R1 to Ex.R13 and closed the evidence.

8. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the father of the complainant namely Charan Singh since deceased had got installed electric connection bearing No.X160P240107X at his residence under DS. Category and the complainant being the beneficiary is a consumer of the opposite parties. The old meter of the consumer was changed on 12.5.2009 vide MCO No. 66/70292 dated 17.3.2009 as per report of the meter reader It is alleged that the removed meter which was packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant who signed the paper seal affixed. The meter was sent to the ME. Lab vide challan No. 44 for its testing. The opposite party No.2 memo No. 641 dated 27.5.2009, followed by another memo No. 808 dated 27.7.2009 and again vide memo No.1105 dated 13.11.2009 directed the complainant to remain present in the M.E. Lab at the time of testing of the meter but the consumer did not turn up on the time and venue intimated to the consumer from time to time in the reference as referred above. The team comprising of officers of the M.E. Lab on testing of the meter on 07.01.2010 found that the consumer had tampered with internal mechanism of the meter after tampering both the M & T seals and clump of the meter and thus, a case of theft of energy against the complainant stands

-6-

established vide testing report of M.E. Lab ExR7. Accordingly the consumer was asked by the Sub Division vide Memo No. 16 dated 17.1.2010 to deposit Rs.26683/- on account of alleged theft of energy committed by the complainant as per standing instructions of the department

9. As per the opposite parties, the removed meter was packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant who signed the paper seal affixed, but while installing the new meter, the column left for signature of the complainant is left blank on the M.C.O. Ex.R1. More so, the opposite parties had not produced any copy of the MSR in token of having received the signature of the complainant to authenticate affixing the paper seal and it is doubtful to conclude that the old meter was replaced in the presence of the complainant. The assessment order of opposite parties for Rs.26683/- for raising the demand to the complainant on account of theft of electric energy is based on the M.E. Lab report Ex.R7 but the procedure adopted is unilateral.

10. Reliance has been placed on to a case reported as Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Senior Executive Engineer Vs. Daljit Kaur 2004 (1) CPC page 270 wherein it is held as under-

"Electric meter Departmental Circular-Circular

No. 45/97 of P.S.E.B. requires that when a

meter is removed for replacement it must be

got sealed after having packed in Card box

and should be signed by consumer and

counter signed by Board official-It also

-7-

requires that consumer should be present

at the time of checking of meter in the

M.E.Lab-In the present case these instructions

were not complied with - Provision of Circular

No.10/2001 not applicable in the case-

District Forum directed P.S.E.B appellant to

refund Rs.1,76,564/- with 9% per annum

interest to respondent/complainant- Appeal

failed."

In the ultimate analysis of the aforesaid discussion, we quash the memo No.16 dated 17.1.2010 Ex.R8 raising the demand of Rs.26683/- to the complainant with the further direction that the amount of Rs.14000/- already deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties vide order of this Forum dated 25.2.2010 be adjusted as per standing instructions of the department within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties through registered post free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated: Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh

06.05.2010 Member Member President