DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB) <br /> <br /> CC.No.261 of 25.09.2009<br /> Decided on: 17.11.2009<br /> <br /> Sham Lal Goyal, Advocate S/o Rama Nand Goyal, resident of H.No. 6547, Sucha Singh Street, Near Mehna Chowk, Bathinda.<br /> ……Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2. Superintendent Engineer Distribution, Punjab State Electricity Board.<br /> 3. A.E.E./S.D.O, Civil Lines, Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bathinda.<br /> ……..Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties: Sh. S.S.Sohi, counsel for opposite parties.<br /> <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 holding domestic electric connection No. B12MT580485A. The said electric meter became defective and sticky, and used to stop, and the last reading was 3096 as per bill of November 2008, and there after, the reading was 3501, in the month of April 2009. This fact was brought to the notice of the Meter Reader of the opposite party. The old meter was replaced with a new electric meter on 29.04.2009. The old meter was taken away by the opposite parties, and it was not replaced with new electric meter in his presence nor the old meter was packed in Card Board Box, at the time of M.C.O. It was neither sealed at the spot nor his signatures were obtained. He received a bill on 22.09.2009, payable up to 07.10.2009 for Rs. 20,220/-, in which Rs. 19,138/-have been added as sundry charges without anything explained to him. He made enquiry from opposite party, but he was not given any information. An amount of Rs. 19,138/- raised in his bill dated 07.10.2009 is without any basis, and has been illegally incorporated as sundry charges. At the time of M.C.O, the meter was not shown to him. The position of the meter was not informed to him, as to whether, any seal of the meter was found tampered with. Even the meter was checked in the M.E.Lab. in his absence. He has not been issued any notice from the M.E.Lab. for his presence for checking of the meter. He has not afforded any opportunity by the opposite parties before Rs. 19,138/- directly put in the bill as sundry charges. Complainant has been levelled with the allegations of theft without any basis, on the basis of illegally obtained M.E.Lab. report, which has caused mental tension, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant. Besides, thus the allegations have tarnished his reputation in the city. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite parties contested the claim raising legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus-standi, or cause of action, and complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum. The old meter was sent to the M.E.Lab. vide Challan No. 636, Serial No. 98 for checking, and after checking, it was found that the seals of the meter have been tampered with, and the complainant was indulging in theft of energy, so, Rs. 19,138/- were added on account of sundry charges/theft of energy, in the bill sent to the complainant. The bill issued by opposite parties is legal and valid, and complainant is bound to pay the same. Complaint is filed on false and frivolous grounds, and is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. On merits also, opposite parties while denying the facts pleaded by the complainant have further reiterated the facts pleaded in legal objections.<br /> 4. Complainant in order to prove his allegations, filed his own two affidavits dt. 24.09.2009 and dt. 03.11.2009 Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-3, and also brought on record, photo copy of bill Ex.C-2; copies of previous bills Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8, and copies of receipt Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-13.<br /> 5. To controvert the allegations of the complainant, opposite parties filed affidavit of Sh. Er. Bhola Singh, SDO, dt. 09.11.2009 Ex.R-1, and also brought on record, photo copy of M.C.O. dt. 19.02.2009 Ex.R-2; copy of store challan containing three pages Ex.R-3, and copy of audit report Ex.R-4.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 7. It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that complainant reported to opposite parties that his electric meter is not functioning properly. It has become defective and sticky, and used to stop automatically. On receiving this information, opposite parties replaced the said meter, with an electric meter on 29.04.2009, whar happened, thereafter, complainant is totally unaware. He suddenly, received a bill dated 22.09.2009, payable by 07.10.2009 for Rs. 20,220/-, in which Rs. 19,138/- has been shown under sundry charges. On enquiry, he was not given any information, and opposite parties insisted upon the complainant to deposit the amount. The learned counsel urged that the complainant has come to know from the reply filed on behalf of the opposite parties that the amount of Rs. 19,138/- has been incorporated in his bill, as sundry charges, on the basis of audit report Ex.R-4, which is based on M.E.Lab. Ex.R-3 at Serial No.98, whereas, when his old meter was replaced, and whether the old meter was sealed, and sent to M.E.Lab. for checking, everything has been done by the opposite parties behind his back. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties tried to justify raising of Rs. 19,138/-, as sundry charges from the complainant as per M.E.Lab. report Ex.R-3 at Serial No. 98. The M.E.Lab. officials found that, the seals of the old meter of the complainant were tampered with, and on the basis of M.E.Lab. report Ex.R-3 as per audit report Ex.R-4, an amount of Rs. 19,138/- has been incorporated in the bill of the complainant.<br /> 8. The M.C.O. Ex.R-2, reveals that it was issued on 19.02.2009, however, on the spot, the old meter of the complainant was replaced with a new electric meter on 29.04.2009. The M.C.O. Ex.R-2 is absolutely silent as to whether, the old meter was sealed on the spot, or not, and in whose possession of the said meter was kept from 29.04.2009 to 23.06.2009, when it was sent to M.E.Lab. vide challan No. 636 Ex.R-3. There is no evidence brought on the record, on behalf of the opposite parties that either at the time of replacement of the old meter, or at the time of testing the old meter in M.E.Lab., either the complainant or any of his authorized representative was present, or that before the old meter of the complainant was examined in the M.E.Lab. on 23.06.2009, any notice was issued either by the opposite parties or by the M.E.Lab.officials calling upon the complainant to remain present in the M.E.Lab. on 23.06.2009, at the time, his old meter was scheduled for checking by the experts. The entries, at Serial No. 98 in Ex.R-3 in the remarks column reveal that the meter was found dead/stop. If the meter was dead/stop, it makes no difference, whether the seals were tampered with, or not. It is also not clear from the pleadings, affidavit of Bhola Singh S.D.O. Ex.R-1 that the complainant was afforded any opportunity before an amount of Rs. 19,138/- was incorporated in his electric bill as sundry charges.<br /> 9. After taking into consideration, the entire evidence and circumstances as have been referred to here in above, it appears that the opposite parties have not followed the mandatory procedure of the P.S.E.B. for taking the defective meter in possession, and also sending the same to M.E.Lab. for examination, and also affording an opportunity to the complainant to remain present in the M.E.Lab., at the time, the meter was checked by M.E.Lab. officials. The M.C.O. Ex.R-2 also does not speak a single word that, after replacement of the old meter by electric meter, the old meter was sealed in a Card Board Box, on the spot, in presence of the complainant, and that the meter remained in sealed condition from 29.04.2009 to 23.06.2009, when it was checked in the M.E.Lab. It appears from the record that demand of Rs. 19,138/- has been raised by the opposite parties for alleged theft of energy; demand was made as sundry charges, merely on the basis of audit report Ex.R-4, which has been prepared on the M.E.Lab. report Ex.R-3, which was not singed by the complainant. Even the meter was not taken into possession by concerned officials, after following the procedure laid down under the Regulations of P.S.E.B. Complainant is a consumer, and the legal right to brought consumer agencies remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an additional one, and cannot denied to the complainant. Theft being a criminal charge required a strict proof, which is not established in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in case titled Charan Singh Vs. The Chairman, P.S.E.B. and another, 2006 (1) CPC 285, and also by the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Commission in the case reported as 1998 (2) CLT-P.24, that 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. Of course, niceties/technicalities of Evidence Act regarding the production of evidence can be overlooked. However, the charge has to be proved.<br /> 10. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that P.S.E.B. could not raise the demand, on the bare report of auditor, based on M.E.Lab. report, which has not even signed by the complainant. In these circumstances, we allow this complaint, and quash the impugned demand of Rs. 19,138/- raised in bill Ex.C-2 dated 22.09.2009, as this amount is incorporated in the said bill under the head sundry charges. Complainant has definitely suffered due to mental tension, unnecessary harassment, and inconvenience, and one sided illegal and arbitrary action of the opposite parties, for which, the complainant is definitely, entitled for a reasonable and adequate amount of compensation, which we assess at Rs. 10,000/- under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,500/-.<br /> 11. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 12. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (GEORGE)<br /> 17.11.2009 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> (DR. PHULIDNER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br />