DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 328 of 13.11.2007<br /> Decided on : 13-02-2008 <br /> <br /> Jorawar Singh aged about 45 years S/o Uggar Singh, R/o House No. 24229, Gali No. 7, Baghu Road, Bathinda. <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala. Through its Secretary.<br /> 2.A.E.E./S.D.O, P.S.E.B. Civil Lines, Bathinda. ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. BA-68/0040 installed in his premises. Since he was abroad, connection was being used by Jaswinder Singh for the last many years. He was paying electricity consumption bills regularly. Nothing was out outstanding. Memo No. 1794 dated 13.7.07 was received by him from the opposite parties through which demand of Rs. 57,068/- has been raised on the ground of short assessment. Direction has been given to him to pay this amount within 7 days failing which the amount would be added in the next bill. On inquiry, it came to light that this amount has been charged on the basis of tampered seals and slow metering. He (complainant) assails this notice/memo as illegal, null and void and against rules on the grounds that it does not show the period; connection was not checked in his presence or in the presence of his relative and that he has no connection whatsoever with Mr. Robin; no defect was pointed out at the time of removal of the mechanical meter and at the time of its replacement with electronic meter; mechanical meter was not packed and sealed in cardboard box nor his signatures or the signatures of Jaswinder Singh or any of his relatives were obtained; meter was not checked in the M.E. Laboratory in his presence or in the presence of Jaswinder Singh; no notice was ever issued to him; checking of the meter, if any, is illegal and one sided; condition of the meter or its seal was not shown to him at the time of installation or removal; there is no provision to overhaul the account for two years; meter is required to be checked in the M.E. Laboratory within 30 days from the date of its removal; in this case meter was removed in August, 2005 and was allegedly checked on 5.2.07 i.e. after a gap of more than one year ans six months after its removal; no explanation has been given on the basis of which amount has been calculated; it is not known who has made the alleged mischief; report of the M.E. Laboratory was not sent to him and no opportunity to defend was afforded; Slow metering of 65.54% could not be unilaterally decided by the opposite parties themselves and that the matter should have been referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector to Govt. of Punjab; impugned demand dated 13.7.07 is contradictory to earlier demand of Rs. 9011/- and reason has not been assigned as to why the demand has been raised on 13.7.07 and not earlier. Jaswinder Singh was visiting office of the opposite parties and was requesting them to withdraw the demand, but to no effect. In these circumstances, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw Memo No. 1794 dated 13.7.07 or quash the same; pay Rs. 20,000/- to him on account of mental tension, harassment and botheration besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant is not consumer; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; dispute pertains to theft of electricity; complainant has not come with clean hands; Complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct and he has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint. Inter-alia their plea is that as per policy of the Board, mechanical meter of the complainant was removed. Electronic meter was installed in its place in the premises of the connection holder by the Junior Engineer with the aid of other staff while discharging his duties, in the presence of his representative i.e. one Mr. Robin who was living in the premises at the relevant time and he had refused to disclose his relations with the complainant. Meter was removed vide M.CO. No. 154/38116 dated 3.8.05 effected on 18.10.05. Removed meter was packed and sealed in cardboard box after affixing paper seal as per rules and signatures of Mr. Robin were obtained on the seal. Meter was kept by the concerned Junior Engineer in his safe custody for checking in M.E. Laboratory. Thereafter Memo/notice No. 233 dated 1.2.06 was delivered to Jaswinder Singh, representative of the complainant who was living in the premises on 2.2.06. He was advised to come present in the M.E. Laboratory on 3.2.06 to get the meter checked in his presence. He refused to sign the notice. His name and telephone number were written by the person who had gone for serving notice on the copy of the notice itself. No one had come in M.E. Laboratory on 3.2.06. Again Notice/memo No. 549 dated 3.3.06 was served upon Amarjit Kaur, representative of connection holder present there. She was also apprised to come present in the M.E. Laboratory on 6.3.06 to get the meter checked. She refused to sign the notice. Again her name and telephone number were written by the person who had gone to serve the notice. No-one had come present in the M.E. Laboratory to get the meter checked. Thereafter third notice was served upon the representative of connection holder apprising him to come present on 13.3.06 in the M.E. Laboratory for getting the meter checked in his presence. Representative of the connection holder had conveyed that connection holder/complainant Jorawar Singh had gone Abroad and he was likely to return in the month of December, 2006 or January, 2007. Keeping this fact in view, matter regarding the checking of the meter in the M.E. Laboratory was kept pending to wait the complainant. Thereafter, after serving two notices No. 277 and 2169 dated 25.1.07 and 18.1.07 respectively, a final notice No. 397 dated 1.2.07 was served upon Mr. Robin, Representative of the complainant present there to come present in the M.E. Laboratory on 5.2.07. Notice was received by him. He had given written consent on the copy of notice itself at the spot that meter could be opened or checked in the M.E. Laboratory in his absence and he would have no objection for the same and that he would be bound by the observations made in the M.E. Laboratory. On 5.2.07 meter which was in packed and sealed condition was taken to the M.E. Laboratory by Sh. Prem Chand, Junior Engineer for checking. No one was present on behalf of the connection holder/complainant. In view of the written consent, meter was taken out of the sealed cardboard box and was checked. During checking both the M.E. Seals were found fake. On internal checking, it was found that potential wire of R-phase and B-phase of the meter was opened due to which it was not recording the reading on R-phase & B-phase. Meter was recording the reading at Y-phase. To know the accuracy of the meter, it was put on testing Bench. It was found that it was running slow to the extent of 65.54%. It was held to be a case of theft of electricity. Demand notice/memo No. 1132 dated 26.3.07 was issued raising demand of Rs. 9011/-. It was served upon the representative of the complainant but he refused to sign it. This notice was not complied with. In the meantime, Audit party had audited the account and they recommended that meter of the complainant was removed from his premises on 18.10.05 and he was found indulging in theft of electricity before 18.10.05 and as such, he be charged as per Commercial Circular No. 33/99 i.e. he be charged with Rs. 57,068/-. On recommendations of the Audit party, demand notice bearing Memo No. 1794 dated 13.7.07 was issued raising demand of Rs. 57,068/- which is legal and valid in all respects. They deny that the demand is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant on the grounds mentioned in the complaint. <br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-8), photocopies of Bills (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-7) and photocopy of Memo dated 13.7.07 (Ex. C-9).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties three affidavits of S/Sh. R K Singla, S.D.O., Sham Sunder, A.J.E, Prem Chand, J.E. (Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3 respectively), photocopy of M.C.O. (Ex. R-4), photocopies of paper seals (Ex. R-5 & Ex. R-6), photocopies of notices (Ex. R-7 to Ex. R-10), photocopy of M.E. Laboratory report (Ex. R-11), Photocopy of Provisional Order of Assessment (Ex. R-12), Photocopy of Audit Report (Ex. R-13), Photocopy of Memo dated 13.7.07 (Ex. R-14) and photocopies of paper seals (Ex. R-15 & Ex. R-16) have been tendered in evidence. <br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Copy of the impugned memo No. 1794 dated 13.7.07 vide which demand of Rs. 57,068/- has been raised on the basis of short assessment is Ex. C-9. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that this memo is illegal as connection of the complainant was not checked in his presence; complainant has no connection with Mr. Robin nor does he know him; no defect was ever pointed out in the mechanical meter at the time of replacement with electronic meter; removed meter was not packed and sealed in cardboard box nor signatures of the complainant, Jaswinder Singh or any of the representative of the complainant were obtained; meter was not checked in the presence of the complainant or Jaswinder Singh; meter was not checked in the M.E. Laboratory within 30 days from the date of its removal and that it was allegedly checked on 5.2.07 i.e. after a gap of one year and six months and no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the complainant. In these circumstances, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising the demand of Rs. 57,068/- on the basis of short assessment. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-8 of the complainant and copies of the various electricity bills Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-7.<br /> 7. Mr. Inderjit Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that demand of Rs. 57,068/- raised on the basis of short assessment is quite legal and valid.<br /> 8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the respective arguments.<br /> 9. Admittedly complainant is living Abroad. As per complainant, premises where electricity connection in question has been installed are being used by one Jaswinder Singh. Mechanical meter of the connection holder was removed and electronic meter was installed in its place vide Meter Change Order, copy of which is Ex. R-4. Meter Change Order was effected by Sh. Sham Sunder, A.J.E. on 18.10.05 whose affidavit is Ex. R-2. He has categorically stated that he had effected Meter Change Order with the help of Assistant Linemen Mr. Subhash Chand and Ramesh Chand and that removed meter was packed in cardboard box and sealed as per rules of the Board in the presence of Mr. Robin representative of the complainant who was living in the house of the complainant. Seals No. 32/1074, 33/1074 were affixed on the duly packed meter in his presence and signatures of Mr. Robin representative of the complainant were obtained on the paper seals. Similarly signatures of Sh. Subhash Chand and Ramesh Chand were obtained. Meter Change Order copy of which is Ex. R-4 and copies of the paper seals Ex. R-5 & Ex. R-6 bear the signatures of Mr. Robin. Affidavits of the complainant do not carry any weight. They stand rebutted with the affidavit of Sh. Sham Sunder. Complainant was living Abroad. His affidavit that he has no relation or connection with Mr. Robin cuts no ice. There is not an iota evidence that Mr. Sham Sunder is inimical or has motive to depose against the complainant. He is a public servant and whatever was done by him on 18.10.05 was in the capacity of public servant. Official acts performed by the public servants in the discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct. At that time Sh. Robin was living in the house of the complainant. Accordingly, Meter Change Order was effected in his presence and removed meter was duly packed and sealed after putting it in the cardboard box. It does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that connection was not checked in his presence. How could it be checked in his presence when he was living Abroad. Complainant did not muster courage to place on record affidavit of Sh. Jaswinder Singh who as per version of the complainant was paying electricity bills. He can state that Mr. Robin was not putting up at all in this house. Sh. Sham Sunder in his affidavit Ex. R-2 has made clear that removed meter was kept by him in his safe custody and had handed it over to Sh. Prem Chand, Junior Engineer for getting the same checked in the M.E. Laboratory. Sh. Prem Chand, Junior Engineer through his affidavit Ex. R-3 supports this version of Sh. Sham Sunder. According to him, meter was received by him. It was bearing seals No. 32/1074, 33/1074. It was in packed and sealed conditions. He kept it in his safe custody and had taken it to the M.E. Laboratory on 5.2.07 where it was checked in his presence. Thereafter it was re-packed and handed over to him by the officials of the M.E. Laboratory. Affidavits Ex. R-2 & Ex. R-3 also get support from the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. R.K. Singla, S.D.O.<br /> 10. Now question is as to whether checking in the M.E. Laboratory is one sided and no opportunity was afforded to the complainant/his representative to be present in the M.E Laboratory for getting it checked. Notice No. 233 dated 1.2.06, copy of which is Ex. R-7 was issued in the name of the complainant for coming present in the M.E. Laboratory for getting the meter checked on 3.2.06 at 10.30 A.M. Complainant admits that Jaswinder Singh is living in his house. Accordingly, this notice No. 233 was delivered to Jaswinder Singh on 2.2.06. He had refused to sign. His name and telephone number were written on the copy of the notice by the person who went for serving the notice upon him. At the risk of repetition it is again mentioned that affidavit of Jaswinder Singh is not on the record to show that notice No. 233 was not received by him nor did he refuse to sign it. On 3.2.06 no-one on behalf of the complainant came present in the M.E. laboratory for getting the meter checked. Again Notice No. 549 dated 3.3.06, copy of which is Ex. R-8 was issued to the complainant. It was served upon Amarjit Kaur, representative of the connection holder. She was apprised to come present in the M.E. Laboratory on 6.3.06 for getting the meter checked. She had refused to sign the notice. Her name and telephone number were written on the copy of the notice by the person who had gone for serving the notice. No-one came present in the ME. Laboratory for getting the meter checked on 6.3.06. Jaswinder Singh has not submitted his affidavit that Amarjit Kaur was not the representative of the complainant and that she was not putting up in the house nor was she having telephone number recorded on Ex. R-8. 3rd notice was sent to the complainant and copy of the same is Ex. R-9. It was again served upon the representative of the complainant. He was apprised to come present in the M.E. Laboratory on 13.3.06 for getting the meter checked. Representative of the complainant had conveyed that complainant had gone Abroad and that he was likely to return in the month of December, 2006 or January, 2007. Accordingly, matter was kept pending. Opposite party No. 1 waited for the complainant as he was likely to come to India. It being so, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that delay has been caused in getting the meter checked. Not to speak of this, two other notices No. 277 dated 25.1.07 and 2169 dated 18.1.07 were issued to the complainant and were served upon his representative. Finally opposite parties issued notice No. 397 dated 1.2.07, copy of which is Ex. R-10. It was served upon Mr. Robin, representative of the complainant apprising him to come present in the M.E. Laboratory on 5.2.07. He gave note on the Notice itself that they have no objection if meter is checked in their absence and the result would be acceptable to them. He appended his signatures on the notice itself. Accordingly on 5.2.07 meter was checked in the M.E. Laboratory. During checking both the M.E. Seals were found fake. On internal checking it was found that the potential wire of R-phase and B-phase of the meter was opened due to which meter was not recording the reading on R-phase & B-phase. It was recording the reading only at 'Y' Phase. Not to speak of this, accuracy of the meter was also checked by putting it on testing Bench. It was found that it was running slow to the extent of 65.54%. Accordingly it was found to be a case of theft of energy vide report, copy of which is Ex. R-11. All these facts are also evident from the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. R.K. Singla S.D.O. We find no material on the record on the basis of which it can be said that this affidavit is incredible. On the basis of M.E. Laboratory report, Notice/ Memo No. 1132 dated 26.3.07 was issued to the complainant raising demand of Rs. 9011/- and copy of this notice is Ex. R-12 Subsequently account of the complainant was audited by the Audit party which has recommended recovery of Rs. 57,068/- from the complainant on the basis of short assessment. Mere fact that earlier amount recoverable was found Rs. 9011/- and subsequently short assessment has been detected to the tune of Rs. 57,068/- is no ground to hold that demand is unjustified particularly when criteria for raising this demand has been mentioned in the audit report itself, copy of which is Ex. R-13. If by mistake or otherwise less amount is shown chargeable, consumer cannot evade his liability to pay the amount which is payable under the rules. Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Municipal Council Gurdaspur through its Executive Officer Vs. The Punjab State Electricity Board and Another 2006(1) CPC 208 , has held that Electricity Board can ask for payment of arrears for a period beyond three years.<br /> 11. Instant one is a case regarding theft of electricity. At the risk of repetition, it is again mentioned that official acts performed by the public servants in the discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct. In our view complainant has failed to rebut this presumption. Cases of theft of electric energy by adopting certain devices or malpractices by the consumers have no relationship with deficiency in service. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Rajasthan in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Santosh Mineral industries 2003(1) CLT 600. Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 2006(3) CLT 112 has gone to the extent of observing that demand is not raised due to any error/omission on the part of Electricity Board but the demand is otherwise just, Electricity Board is justified in raising it. Demand in this case is quite legal and valid. Mere fact that amount has been subsequently found due by the Audit Party would not make it illegal.<br /> 12. In the premises written above, crux of the matter is that complainant has not succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Demand of Rs. 57,068/- raised by them is justified. Complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 13-02-2008 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />