DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> CC No. 105 of 25-04-2007<br /> Decided on : 15-06-2007<br /> <br /> Sohan Lal Goyal, Advocate S/o Sh. Des Raj R/o Mohinder Singh Street, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus <br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Sub Divisional Officer, at Goniana Mandi.<br /> 2.Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Secretary at Patiala. ...opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer<br /> Protection Act, 1986.<br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. <br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Raj Kumar, 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 No. GN-16/0075-K at Goniana Mandi. He is regularly paying the electricity consumption charges. Bill No. G-96/767 dated 21.4.07 for a sum of Rs. 9120/- has been sent by the opposite parties. According to it there is consumption of 397 units. Amount of Rs. 7804/- has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances. No reason has been given as to how this amount of Rs. 7804/- has been added in this bill. Complainant avers that he is not liable to pay this amount. No notice was ever issued before adding this amount in the bill. Opposite parties were contacted with the request to delete the amount of Rs. 7804/- from this bill, but to no effect. Complainant alleges that opposite parties have caused him unnecessary harassment for which he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. In these circumstances, 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 delete the amount of Rs. 7804/- from this impugned bill and pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present from; matter is liable to be referred to Dispute Settlement Committee of Punjab State Electricity Board (Here-in-after referred to as `Board') and as such, this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file it; complainant is not consumer and he has not come with clean hands. Inter-alia their plea is that previous meter installed in the premises of the complainant was removed by their official under rules vide M.C.O. No. 50/48477 dated 21.12.05 effected on 20.6.06 in the presence of consumer/his representative. It was duly packed and sealed as per rules and was sent to M.E. Laboratory for checking. Various notices were issued to the complainant for coming to the M.E. Laboratory for getting the removed meter checked in his presence. Ultimately, on 28.8.06, representative of the complainant namely Raj Kumar Goyal visited M.E. Laboratory to get the removed meter checked in his presence and he appended his signatures on the relevant documents. Seals of the card board box were shown to his representative. Meter was taken out of the sealed card board box and thereafter it was checked as per rules. On checking, M.E. Seals were found O.K. There was hole in the body of the meter at point `A' shown in the report of M.E. Laboratory. Further there was scratches on the digit's plate. Officials of the M.E. Laboratory observed that complainant by making hole in the body of the meter, was unauthorisedly controlling the consumption of energy. It was found to be a case of theft of electricity. Detailed checking report was prepared which was signed by the representative of the complainant and copy thereof was supplied to him. On the basis of checking report, demand of Rs. 7804/- has been raised. A separate memo was issued to the complainant. Complainant did not deposit the amount. Thereafter it has been charged in the bill dated 21.4.07. Amount is legal and valid in all respects. Complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct and complaint is false and frivolous. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopies of bills (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3) and photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-4).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties two affidavits of S/Sh. Ramesh Kumar Goyal, S.D.O. and Jagjit Singh J.E (Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2 respectively), photocopy of M.C.O. (Ex. R-3), photocopy of M.E. Lab report (Ex. R-4) and copy of notice (Ex. R-5) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Complainant has reiterated his version in his affidavit Ex. C-1. Copy of the impugned bill is Ex. C-3 in which a sum of Rs. 7804/- has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances which has been assailed by the complainant.<br /> 7. No doubt in the reply of the complaint, opposite parties have attempted to explain that compliance of commercial circulars No. 47/97 and 8/99 has been made as meter was removed vide MCO dated 21.12.05, copy of which is Ex. R-3 and that removed meter was duly packed, sealed and got signed. For this, they have placed on record affidavit of Sh. Jagjit Singh, J.E. Who has stated that M.C.O. No. 48477/050 dated 21.12.05 was issued for removal of the old meter and installation of electronic meter at its place and that he effected the M.C.O. on 20.6.06 as per rules in the presence of Mr. Mohit and that removed meter was duly packed and sealed by him as per rules and was sent to M.E. Laboratory. No reliance can be placed on this affidavit as evidence does not establish that removed meter was packed in the card board box and it was sealed and got signed from the representative of the complainant and the official of the Board present at the site. Ex. R-3 is the copy of the Meter Change Order which was effected on 20.6.06 by Sh. Jagjit Singh. Junior Engineer. It reveals that old meter was removed and in its place new meter was installed. There is nothing in Ex. R-3 that removed meter was put in the card board box, sealed and got signed. Hence plea of the opposite party on this aspect of the matter is not substantiated. Another question is as to whether Sh. Mohit who has been shown to have signed the Meter Change Order was the representative of the complainant. Answer to our minds is in the negative. Parentage and address of Mohit have not been given in the Meter Change Order and even by Sh. Jagjit Singh in his affidavit Ex. R-2. There is no material on the record to show that Mohit was the authorised agent of the complainant or he is in any way related to him. Ex. R-4 is the copy of M.E. Laboratory report. Even in this document, no number of the paper seal affixed on the alleged sealed card box has been recoded. Hence, conclusion is that opposite parties have failed to establish that Sh. Mohit was the representative of the complainant and meter was put in the card board box, sealed and got signed. According to affidavit Ex. R-2 of Sh. Jagjit Singh, removed meter was sent to M.E. Laboratory under rules. He has not given the date on which it was sent to the M.E. Laboratory and through whom. Affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Goyal, does not make the position clear on this count. According to the the M.E. Laboratory report, copy of which is Ex. R-4, meter was received in the M.E. Laboratory through challan No.51 dated 28.8.06 through Kewal Krishan J.E. Copy of the challan has not been placed on record. It is not known where the removed meter remained from 20.6.06 to 28.8.06. It was the duty of the opposite parties to establish that from the date of removal of the meter till it was taken to the M.E. Laboratory, it remained intact. Evidence to this effect is lacking. Affidavit of Kewal Krishan is not on the record to show that so long as meter remained in his possession neither he nor did he allow any one else to tamper with the same. In the body of the M.E. Laboratory report, meter has been shown to have been taken out from the closed box. As discussed above, opposite parties have not proved by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence that meter was duly put in the card board box, sealed and got signed. When it is so, how it came out to be put in the box when it was presented in the M.E. Laboratory.<br /> 8. According to M.E. Laboratory report there was hole in the body of the meter shown at point `A' in the rough sketch of the meter drawn on the report. Apart from this, there were scratches on the digit's plate. Material question for adjudication is as to whether complainant was committing theft of energy on the ground alleged by the opposite parties. No officer/official of the Board who checked the meter in the M.E. Laboratory has submitted his affidvit to support the report, copy of which is Ex. R-4. As per M.E. Laboratory report, M.E. Seals of the meter were intact. When these seals were intact, no presumption of tampering with the meter can be raised. No material has been produced on the file about the condition of the meter when it was installed indicating receipt of the meter by the complainant at his premises without any tampering. It was for the opposite parties to establish that at the time of installation of the meter, there was no hole in the meter body and scratches on the digit's plate. There may be several reasons of existence of such scratches on the digit's plate. It is not the case where checking staff at the time of removal of the meter saw any straw affixed in the hole of the meter for stopping its reading. Jagjit Singh or any other official of the Board at the time of removal of the meter did not observe theft of energy being committed by stopping the meter in any manner. It is well settled ad-age of the law that mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof and conjectural ground that the possibility of attempting to commit theft could not be ruled out, cannot be made foundation summarily for levying a penalty. For this, reference may be made to the authority H.S.E.B. Vs. Krishan Dev (1994) CPJ 74. Opposite parties have not made out case that after the meter was removed, there is increase in consumption of energy after installation of new meter. Authorities Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Balwant Singh 1997(1) CPC 579, Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Ashok Kumar 2000(2) CPC 88 and Superintending Engineer Vs. Punjab Khapatkar Sangh (Regd) 2005(2) CPC 407 are applicable to the case in hand on all the fours. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Balwant Singh (supra), Haryana State Electricity Board had pleaded that on the checking of the electricity connection of the complainant by the vigilance staff, a hole in the electricity meter was detected. This hole had been made by tampering the joint between the seals. By this Disc movement could be stopped inserting any straw piece (small wooden stick) through the hole. District Forum came to the conclusion that Board failed to prove the charge of theft of energy against the complainant especially because at the time of checking no straw etc., was fixed in the hole of the electricity meter nor was the theft of electric energy was being drawn by stopping the meter in any method. Appeal preferred by the Haryana State Electricity Board was dismissed by the Hon'ble State Commission of Haryana. In the case of Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar (supra) glass of MC.B. was found to be fixed with M Seal from outside and it had appeared to be tampered with. On opening the M. Seal, broken pieces of glass were found from the box. On further checking, glass of the electric meter was also found tampered with from upper side. Some signs of tampering on the meter plate as well as the digits were also observed in the form of scratches. It was held by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab that no evidence has been produced by the Department to prove the condition of the meter when it was installed or that it was untampered at that time. Accordingly, order of the District Forum was upheld and the appeal preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board was dismissed.<br /> 9. Futile effort has been made by the opposite parties to prove that memo No. 26 dated 16.4.07 was issued to the complainant raising demand of Rs. 7804/- but he did not deposit the amount and thereafter this amount has been added in the impugned bill dated 21.4.07. For this, their document on the record is Ex. R-5 upon which report has been made by one Manjit Singh, B.D. that consumer has refused to receive the notice. No affidavit of Manjit Singh is on the record as to when he had contacted the complainant for serving this notice upon him. To the contrary, there is affidavit of Sh. Sohan Lal, who is an Advocate stating that no notice was ever sent to him and amount of Rs. 7804/- has been illegally added in the bill. Firstly without serving notice giving the details of amount, it cannot be added directly in the bill. Secondly there is non-compliance of commercial circular No. 34/06. According to it, provisional order of assessment as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act was required to be served upon the complainant by the Assessing Office. In this case, notice copy of which is Ex. R-5 has been shown to have been issued by Assistant Executive Engineer. According to commercial circular No. 34/06 after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing against the objections to be filed by the consumer, the Assessing Officer has to pass an order of the charges payable by the person giving him seven days for representing against its provisional assessment order. Hence, there is contravention of this commercial circular as well.<br /> 10. In view of the discussion made above, crux of the matter is that the demand of Rs.7804/- raised by the opposite parties by showing it in the column of sundry charges and allowance in the bill dated 17.4.07, copy of which is Ex. C-3 is illegal, null, void and arbitrary. Complainant is not liable to pay this amount. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they have illegally demanded this amount.<br /> 11. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of what has been discussed above, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw the demand of Rs. 7804/- out of the amount of the bill dated 17.4.07 as complainant is not liable to pay this amount. Further direction deserves to be given that if any amount out of Rs. 7804/- has been got deposited, the same be refunded alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of deposit till realisation. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental tension, harassment and botheration. Facts and circumstances of this case do warrant some compensation on this aspect which we assess as Rs. 750/-.<br /> 12. In the result, complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :<br /> i) Withdraw the demand of Rs. 7804/- out of the amount of the bill dated 17.4.07, copy of which is Ex. C-3. <br /> ii) Refund the amount, if any, got deposited out of the amount of Rs. 7804/- from the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from the date of deposit till realisation.<br /> iii) Pay Rs. 750/- as compensation under Section 14(1(d) of the Act.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) would carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realisation.<br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 15 -06-2007 ( Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> ( Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />