DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 154 of 22.5.2008 Decided on : 15.7.2008 <br /> <br /> Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Sita Ram R/o Street No.1, Basant Vihar, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Cantt. Sub Division, Bathinda.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Lovenish Garg, Advocate<br /> For the oppositeparties: Sh.Sushil Kumar Goyal,Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties not to recover Rs.9,865/- from him; pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% P.A; Rs. 6,000/- as costs and desist from disconnecting his electricity connection.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass as under :-<br /> Complainant is holder of electricity connection bearing A/c No. AC-22/0583. Notice No.653 dated 17.3.2008 was received by him from the opposite parties in which demand of Rs. 9,865/- has been raised alleging tampering of the body and M.E seals of the meter on the basis of the checking dated 5.2.2008 in the M.E Lab. He assails this demand as illegal, null and void on the grounds that checking was not made in his presence; removed meter was not packed in card board box; meter was not checked in the M.E Lab in his presence; no defect in the meter was ever pointed out although it is checked by the Meter Reader and J.E of the opposite parties after every two months; Board can overhaul the account only for six months or check the consumption at the premises by putting up parallel meter to know the discrepancy in the meter reading and no opportunity of hearing was afforded before slapping the bill and no criteria or basis of the demand has been shown. Despite requests made by him, opposite parties are out to disconnect the electricity connection. It is further averred that act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice due to which he has undergone mental agony and frustration.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file it; complaint is pre-mature; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct and he has concealed material facts from this Forum. On merits, they admit that complainant is holder of electricity connection. Inter-alia their plea is that meter of the complainant was defective. It was changed on 15.11.2007 vide MCO No. 74109 dated 19.10.2007 in his presence. It was packed in card board box and sealed in his presence. The same was sent to M.E Lab and was checked on 5.2.2008. It was found that M.E seals of the meter were tampered. Body of the meter was also found tampered. Provisional Order of Assessment for unauthorised use of electricity was issued raising demand of Rs. 9,865/-. He did not file any objection within seven days of the receipt of notice. He had sent letter dated 7.4.2008 much after the stipulated period of provisional notice. Despite this, opposite party No. 2 vide memo No.459 dated 29.4.2008 afforded an opportunity of being heard to him before Superintending Engineer(D), Near Lake-1, Bathinda, but he did not avail the same for settlement of the matter. They deny that notice is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Suresh Kumar complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of provisional order of assessment dated 17.3.2008 (Ex.C.2), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex.C.3) and photocopy of letter dated 7.4.2008 (Ex.C.4).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1,Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.8) of S/Sh. Pritpal Singh, SDO, Ajay Kumar Sexsena, J.E and Wazir Singh, J.E respectively, photocopy of letter dated 7.4.2008 (Ex.R.3), photocopy of memo dated 29.4.2008 (Ex.R.4), photocopy of Store Challan (Ex.R.5), photocopy of MCO dated 19.10.2007 (Ex.R.6) and photocopy of Provisional Order of Assessment dated 17.3.2008 (Ex.R.7). <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 7. Submission of Mr. Garg learned counsel for the complainant is that demand of Rs.9,865/- raised by the opposite parties through memo dated 17.3.2008, copy of which is Ex.C.2, is illegal, arbitrary, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavit and the application submitted by the complainant to opposite party No.2 which was received by him on 16.4.2008 through which objections were raised against the impugned memo. <br /> 8. Mr. Goyal learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that Meter Change Order was issued on 19.10.2007 and it was effected by Sh. Wazir Singh, J.E. Meter which was previously installed was removed and in its place new meter was installed. Removed meter was sent to the M.E Lab through Sh. A.K Sexsena, J.E whose affidavit is Ex.R.2. Meter was sent to the M.E Lab through Store Challan, copy of which is Ex.R.5. It was checked in the M.E Lab and its body was found tampered. Accordingly, report was made on the Store Challan itself. Thereafter, impugned memo was issued which is quite legal and valid. Complainant did not file any objection against the impugned memo within the prescribed time. An application was moved by the complainant on 16.4.2007 and opposite party No. 2 had intimated him to appear before Superintending Engineer and present his case so that final assessment order may be passed, but he did not appear before him. In these circumstances, submission is that opposite parties are well within their right to raise demand of Rs. 9,865/-. He also made reference of Ex.R.8 which is affidavit of Sh. Wazir Singh, J.E.<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments. As per performance record of the electronic meter, copy of which is Ex.R.5, the status of the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was 'D' means defective. To the same effect is the affidavit of Sh. Pritpal Singh, SDO who has stated that meter installed in the premises of the complainant was changed for the purpose of installation of new meter in its place because previous meter was defective. Opposite parties allege that old meter was removed in the presence of the complainant. There is nothing in the MCO that meter was removed in his presence or in the presence of his representative by Sh. Wazir Singh, J.E on 15.11.2007. Observations have not been given by Sh. Wazir Singh on the MCO regarding the status of the meter. When opposite parties allege that meter was defective and it was to be changed, it was their duty to change it in the presence of the complainant or his representative. When opposite parties were to get the meter checked being defective from the M.E Lab, it was imperative for them to pack the meter in the card board box and thereafter seal it in the presence of the complainant or his representative. No-doubt, Sh. Wazir Singh has made an attempt that removed meter was packed in the card board box and it was handed over to Sh. A.K Sexsena, yet there is no evidence that complainant or his representative was present at the time of effecting the MCO. He does not say at all that after packing the meter card board box was sealed. There is no affidavit of any official of the M.E Lab that meter was received packed in card board box. Hence, no weight can be attached to affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Wazir Singh. Meter was changed on 15.11.2007 by Sh. Wazir Singh, J.E. It was sent to the M.E Lab through Sh. Ajay Kumar Sexsena on 5.2.2008. Plea of the opposite parties that it was sent to M.E Lab for routine checking, cannot be accepted, particularly when opposite parties knew that meter was defective and they thought it fit to get it checked from the M.E Lab. There is no evidence that from the day of removal of the meter till 5.2.2008, it remained intact and that no-body was allowed to tamper with it or its seals.<br /> 10. Under the rules of the Board, when meter is to be got checked from the M.E Lab, prior notice is required to be issued to the consumer regarding the time, date and place of its checking in the M.E Lab. There is not an iota of evidence on the record that such notice was issued to the complainant intimating time, date and place of checking of the meter. No-doubt, on the Store Challan remarks have been given that M.E seals of the meter and its body were tampered. It is not known who is the officer of the opposite parties who has made this report. Affidavits of the concerned officials who allegedly checked the meter in the M.E Lab have not been placed and proved on the record. In case, meter was actually checked, separate report was required to be prepared by the concerned officials of the M.E Lab. There is no evidence that such like report was prepared. Complainant has been condemned unheard as no opportunity was afforded to him of being present at the time of removal of the meter and at the time of its alleged checking in the M.E Lab. Hence, the demand raised by the opposite parties is certainly arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Mere fact that after application was moved by the complainant, copy of which is Ex.R.3, letter, copy of which is Ex.dR.4, was written by opposite party No. 2 intimating him that he should appear before the Superintending Engineer for getting personal hearing, does not validate the previous illegalities and irregularities regarding the removal of the meter, its proper packing and sealing and its checking in the M.E Lab. When demand has been illegally and arbitrarily made, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved.<br /> 11. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our forgoing discussion, it is a fit case where interest of justice demands that opposite parties be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs. 9,865/- raised through memo, copy of which is Ex.C.2, as it is illegal. Complainant has already deposited Rs.4,930/- out of the amount of Rs.9,865/- as is clear from the copy of the receipt Ex.R.3. Opposite parties are liable to refund this amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of deposit i.e. 3.4.2008 till payment. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs.50,000/-. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above. Out of compensation and interest, one can be allowed.<br /> 12. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Withdraw demand of Rs. 9,865/- raised through memo No. 653 dated 17.3.2008, copy of which is Ex.C.2.<br /> ( ii ) Refund Rs. 4,930/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 3.4.2008 till payment.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 13. Copy of this order be sent to the<br /> <br /> <br /> parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 15.7.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member <br /> 'bsg'