DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB) <br /> CC.No.177 of 03.08.2009<br /> Decided on: 12.11.2009<br /> <br /> Faquir Chand S/o Ladhu Ram, resident of Guru Ki Nagar, Bathinda, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda, through his Special Power of attorney Sh. Parbhati Lal S/o Surjan Ram, resident of H.No. 2436, Gali No. 4-A, Guru Ki Nagri, Bathinda.<br /> ……Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Chairman/Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Bathinda.<br /> 2. S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban Division, Bathinda.<br /> ……Opposite parties. <br /> <br /> Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> Present:<br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, counsel for the <br /> complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties: Sh. J.D. Nayyar, counsel for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh. George, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> GEORGER, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that complainant is having an electric connection bearing No. B14HN230777Y. He reported to opposite parties that the meter installed was running without any switching on any electrical element, and he moved an application to the opposite party No.2 on 14.01.2009, requesting that the meter may be removed. On his application, opposite party No.2 removed the electric meter, and sent the same to M.E. Lab. M.E. Lab. examined the meter, and thereafter, he received a notice on 26.05.2009, whereby, he was called upon to deposit an amount of Rs. 13,323/- on the pretext that the block of the meter has been changed, which amounts to theft of electric energy. He pleaded that he has not touched the electric meter, and he has no knowledge, as to who interfered with the meter. He requested opposite parties to withdraw the Provisional Notice of Assessment, but opposite parties are not ready to listen his request, and also threatened to recover the said amount by disconnecting the electric meter on non payment. Complainant due to the illegal act of the opposite parties, have to suffer mental tension, harassment and inconvenience, for which he has sought the compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-, and also prayed for quashing of the Illegal Demand Notice as referred to here-in-above.<br /> 2. Opposite parties contested the allegations raising legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus-standi, or cause of action; complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum, and suppressed the material facts; Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; complainant is not a consumer, and he has filed the present complaint on false and frivolous grounds. He is not entitled for any relief. In fact, the Electric Meter of the complainant was changed. On checking, it was found in the M.E. Lab. that the block of the meter had been changed to control the consumption reading of the meter consumption, by way of unauthorized means, and the meter was found to be tampered with. Thus, this amounts to theft of energy, and therefore, complainant was served with the Provisional Order of Assessment of Rs. 13,323/-, which has been calculated as per the Rules of P.S.E.B. Complainant was asked to deposit the said amount within a period of seven days, and also directed to submit objections if any, within seven days. Complainant neither made the payment nor filed any objections, and therefore, the Provisional Assessment Order has become final, and complainant is liable to make payment to the opposite parties.<br /> 3. On merits also, while denying all the allegations of the complainant, opposite parties have pleaded the same facts as have been pleaded in the legal objections as referred to above.<br /> 4. Complainant in order to prove the allegations, filed his own affidavit dt. 14.01.2009 Ex.C-1, and also brought on record, affidavit of Sh. Parbhati Lal, dt. 06.10.2009 Ex.C-1; copy of letter dt. 03.07.2009 Ex.C-2; postal receipt Ex.C-3; copy of notice of Provisional Order of Assessment dt. 26.05.2009 Ex.C-4; copy of payment receipt Ex.C-6; copies of bill Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-14, and Special Power of Attorney dt. 16.07.2009 Ex.C-15.<br /> 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite parties filed affidavits of Sh. B.K.Jindal, Sr. Xen/M.E., Sh. Ajay Kumar Saxena, SDO, and Sh. Surinder Pal, J.E., dt. 20.10.2009 Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3, and also brought on record, copy of M.E. Challan containing three pages Ex.R-4; photo copy of M.E. Lab. report Ex.R-5; photo copy of Consumption Data Ex.R-6, and copy of M.C.O. dt. 19.01.2009 Ex.R-7.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 7. It is an admitted fact that the Electric Meter installed by P.S.E.B., and electric connection of the complainant was got removed by the complainant himself, and he moved an application to opposite party No.2 on 14.1.2009, requesting that his meter was running without switching on any electrical element, therefore, it should be changed. Opposite party No. 2 while changing electric meter, and got the defective electric meter packed, and sent it to M.E. Lab. for checking. The electric meter was checked in the M.E. Lab. on 24.04.2009, by the Officials of the opposite parties, and on checking, it was found that the block of the Meter had been changed to control the reading of the Electricity Consumption by way of unauthorized means, and the meter was found to be tampered with. The question is, who has tampered with electric meter of the complainant to make the complainant liable for the commission of theft of electric energy. The meter was examined in M.E. Lab. on 24.04.2009, and its block was found to be changed to control the reading of the Electricity Consumption. If this would have been done by the complainant, he had no reason to move the application on 14.01.2009 informing opposite party No.2 that the Electric Meter is running continuously without switching on any electric equipment. It also appears from the record that at the time of M.C.O., document Ex.R-7 was prepared, but it does not speak out any such fact that the meter removed was properly sealed as per the Regulations of P.S.E.B. on the spot, in presence of the complainant or any of his authorized representative. If the meter would have been sealed on the spot, as it has been deposed by Sh. Ajay Kumar Saxena, SDO and Sh. Surinder Pal, J.E., in their affidavits Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3, they would have definitely mentioned this fact in M.C.O. Ex.R-7. Rather Ex.R-7 is not even signed by Sh. Ajay Kumar Saxena, SDO and Sh. Surinder Pal, J.E. In this way, opposite parties have failed to prove that the Electric Meter was sealed on the spot as per the requirements of Regulations of P.S.E.B. If Sh. Ajay Kumar Saxena, SDO and Sh. Surinder Pal, J.E. were present on the spot, at the time, when the meter was removed, they would have definitely prepared some memo to show that the meter was properly packed in Card Board Box, and sealed in the presence of the complainant. The only evidence available against the complainant that he was involved in theft of electric energy in M.E. Lab. report, which is also based on mere inference that since the block of the meter was found changed, therefore, according to M.E. Officials i.e. Sh. B.K.Jindal, Sr. Xen/M.E., who filed his own affidavit Ex.R-1, and gave report Ex.R-4 that it is non else, but only the complainant is responsible for change of the block of the meter without any direct or indirect evidence to corroborate this inference drawn by M.E. Officials. The charge of theft of electric energy is a criminal charge, and a strict proof is required to establish the offence as is required before a criminal court. Of course, niceties/technicalities of Evidence Act regarding the production of evidence can be overlooked. However, the charge has to be proved. In the present case, neither there is any memo prepared by P.S.E.B. Officials to prove that the meter was properly sealed on the spot, at the time, it was removed from the premises of the complainant nor the factum of removal of change of block of the meter was brought to the notice of the complainant. There is no collateral evidence to conclude on the record that the block of the meter was removed/changed by non else, but by the complainant. <br /> 8. In taking the view as referred to above, we are supported with the observations made by the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Commission in the case reported as 1998 (2) CLT-P. 24, wherein, it has been held “charge of theft of energy is a criminal charge and a strict proof is required to establish the offence as is required before a criminal court”. <br /> 9. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in case titled Charan Singh Vs. The Chairman, P.S.E.B. and another, in reported as 2006 (1) CPC 285. <br /> 10. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to conclude that opposite parties have not been able to prove that the complainant was responsible for changing the block of the meter, and therefore, he can not be held responsible for theft of electric energy. Accordingly, we accept the complaint, and direct opposite parties to withdraw the impugned demand notice Ex.C-4 i.e. Rs. 13,323/-, as the same stands quashed. Both the parties are left to be bear their own costs.<br /> 11. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (GEORGE)<br /> 12.11.2009 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />