BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No.37 of 2008 Instituted on: 08.04.2008 Date of Service: 28.04.2008 Decided on: 11.09.2008 Raj Kumar (aged 70 years) son of Sh.Lahori Ram, resident of Sardar Nagar, Akalsar Road, Moga, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Punjab State Electricity Board, D.S.Sub Urban, Moga through Executive Engineer, Moga. 3. Punjab State Electricity Board, D.S. Sub Urban, Moga through its Asstt. Executive Engineer. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member Present: Sh.Rajnish Goyal, Adv. counsel for the complainant. Sh.R.K.Goyal, Adv. counsel for the OPs. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh. Raj Kumar complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman and others- opposite parties (herein-after referred to as Board) directing them to withdraw the illegal and unlawful demand of Rs. 35236/- made vide letter no.340 dated 25.02.2008 and also to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside Rs.10000/- as costs of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, Raj Kumar complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties having NRS electric connection bearing account no. SN01/0112 with sanctioned load of 6.00 KW. That the said connection has been installed in his shop in which he was running small business to earn his livelihood and making both ends meal. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden some officials of the OPs-Board visited his premises and removed the meter installed at his premises without any rhyme and reason and without getting his signatures and took away the same with them. That the removed meter was neither packed and sealed in the card board box nor sent the same in M.E.Lab for its checking nor any prior notice to check the same in the ME Lab was ever sent to him. Thereafter, the complainant received a notice no.340 dated 25.2.2008 calling upon him to deposit a sum of Rs.35236/- on account of theft of energy. That the complainant never indulged in theft of energy. Moreover, at the time of its removal, the meter was working correctly and the periodical reading was shown by the said meter. That the reading of the new meter clearly establish that the complainant never committed any theft of energy. That he had requested the OPs-Board to withdraw the impugned amount, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to the complainant for which he has claimed Rs.100000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.R.K.Goyal Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. On merits, it was averred that in fact on 20.06.2007 the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was replaced vide MCO No.4/66968 by Subash Chander Arora, J.E of the OPs-Board. That the removed meter was sent to ME Lab vide challan no.11 who checked the same and found that the meter in question was tempered with and they declared it a case of theft of energy. Thereafter, memo no.340 dated 25.02.2008 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.35276/- on account of theft of energy, to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of bills Ex.A2 to Ex.A7, original receipt Ex.A8, notice Ex.A9, copy of letter Ex.A10 and closed his evidence. 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence the joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar, Sr.XEN and Sh.R.K.Joshi, SDO, copy of MCO Ex.R2, copy of detail Ex.R3, copy of ME Lab report Ex.R4 and closed their evidence. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Rajnish Goyal ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.R.K.Goyal ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 7. Sh.Rajnish Goyal ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.35236/- raised vide notice dated 25.2.2008 by the OPs-Board is wrong, illegal and against the rules and instructions of the PSEB because the complainant had never committed theft of energy. Moreover, the removed meter was neither packed and sealed in card board box nor it was sent to M.E.Lab for its checking as prescribed under the rules of the PSEB. The complainant was not served with notice for appearance before the M.E.Lab nor the meter was sent to the said laboratory for checking. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has full force. 8. Admittedly, the old meter installed at the premises of the complainant was replaced with a new meter. It is nowhere mentioned or pleaded by the OPs-Board in their written reply that at the time of its removal, it was packed and sealed in the presence of complainant. Further ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has also failed to produce any evidence to prove if the meter in question was sent to M.E.Lab for checking or any prior notice was issued to the complainant by the M.E.Lab to come present for the checking of the removed meter. In the absence of aforesaid reliable evidence on record, the officials of the OPs-Board had no authority to declare that the complainant was committing theft of energy. OPs-Board has also failed to produce any document on record if the removed meter was ever sent to M.E.Lab for its checking, hence the report of M.E.Lab can not be deemed as authentic. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the report Ex.R4 of Sh.Subhash Cander Arora J.E. Hence, in the absence of any evidence or report of M.E.Lab, it can not be said that the meter was tempered with or that the complainant was committing theft of energy. 9. On this point, it has been held in 2004(1) Consumer Law Today-649 Punjab State Electricity Board through its Senior Executive Engineer versus Daljit Kaur by our own Honble State Commission to the following effect:- We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. District Forum has rightly held that the provisions of Circular No.45/97 mandated that it was obligatory on the officers of the opposite parties to pack the impugned meter in card board box, get it sealed and signed by the complainant or her representative and countersigned by the officers of the opposite parties and also to intimate the complainant to remain present during the M.E.Lab checking of the impugned meter. 10. In the instant case also, neither the removed meter was ever sent to M.E.Lab nor any notice was issued to the consumer or his representative to come present for checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab. Thus, the OPs-Board had violated the mandatory instructions of commercial circular no.45/97. Similarly, the ruling 2004(1) Consumer Law Today-14 PSEB through its additional SE (Operation) Ludhiana and another versus Gurcharan Singh of our own Honble State Commission is also fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Relying upon the supra authority, we therefore, hold that the impugned demand of Rs.35236/- made vide memo no.340 dated 25.02.2008 by the OPs-Board on account of theft of energy is illegal, uncalled for and against the rules of the PSEB and we quash the same. 11. To prove the aforesaid assertion, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of bills Ex.A2 to Ex.A7, original receipt Ex.A8, notice Ex.A9, copy of letter Ex.A10. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar, Sr.XEN and Sh.R.K.Joshi, SDO and other documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4. 12. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant has merit and the same is accepted. The impugned demand of Rs.35236/- raised vide notice no.340 dated 25.02.2008 from the complainant stands quashed. The OPs-Board is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation to the complainant. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla) Member Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:11.09.2008. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant has merit and the same is accepted. The impugned demand of Rs.35236/- raised vide notice no.340 dated 25.02.2008 from the complainant stands quashed. However, the OPs-Board is at liberty to get the meter in question checked in M.E.lab in the presence of the complainant after serving him 15 days prior notice and pass appropriate order accordingly. In view of peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order shall be supplied to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.
