JUDGMENT 16.112010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 30.5.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana whereby complaint bearing No.1221/2000 of respondents (complainants) was allowed and the demand raised by the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) was quashed and the amount deposited against the disputed demand was ordered to be refunded with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till refund. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that complainants had purchased the property from its previous owner Sh.Radhey Mohan Kapoor where electricity connection bearing Account No.27/274 of domestic category with sanctioned load of 1 KW was installed. Complainant No.1 applied for transfer of the said connection in her own name and also deposited Rs.840/- on 18.7.2000. Thereafter, demand notice was issued for depositing Rs.600/-. However, officials of the OPs in the absence of complainants removed the meter installed in the said premises without packing and sealing the same in the cardboard box. Subsequently in the month of October,2000, OPs vide notice dated nil asked the complainants to deposit Rs.67864/-. No detail of the said demand raised was given. However, it was recited therein that M.E. seals of the meter were tamped with and the meter was recording less consumption by 66% and it was a case of theft of energy. OPs then issued Disconnection Order dated 19.10.2000 to disconnect the connection. It was alleged that the meter was not checked in the presence of complainants or their representatives in M.E.Laboratry nor any notice was sent to them to be present there on the date of alleged checking of the meter. It was further alleged that in case of defective meter, the matter was required to be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector for determination of the dispute regarding slowness of the meter and only thereafter the demand can be raised as per his direction but it was not done in the instant case and OPs themselves issued demand notice raising demand of Rs.67864/- which was illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and regulations of the Punjab State Electricity Board. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 3. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the electric connection of complainant was checked by the Meter Inspectors of Sunder Nagar Division on 9.9.2000 in a door to door checking of electric connections in the area. During the said checking, both ME seals were found tampered and testing of the meter at the site with standard heat load and stop watch method indicated that the meter was recording 65% less energy. Accordingly the meter was removed from the site and packed in the card board box on 9.9.2000 with paper seals signed by the complainant No.1. The said packed meter was sent to ME Lab on 18.9.2000 for computerized checking to establish exact slowness . During examination, all ME seals were found tampered and on internal examination, turns of current coil had been found reduced. The meter was then put on test Bench where computerized testing indicated that the meter was recording 66% less energy. Thus, it being a case of measured theft, the account of the consumer was overhauled from the date of installation of the meter till the date of its removal and accordingly notice was served upon the consumer asking her to pay Rs.67864/-. It was pleaded that the demand had been rightly calculated and raised in terms of CC No.33/99 and the matter was not liable to be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 4. Parties adduced their respective evidence before the District Forum alongwith documents. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for parties, allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, Opposite parties had filed their appeal before the Punjab State Consumer commission which has been transferred to this Commission under directions of the Hon’ble National Commission. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file carefully. The only noticeable point urged on behalf of Appellant/OPs is that the meter of the complainant was checked on 9.9.2000 by two meter Inspectors and found that both the seals were tampered and on putting load, the disc had moved forward but was running slow by 65% of the actual speed. The meter then was got tested from the M&E lab wherein it was reported that the ME seals were tampered and on internal investigation, it was detected that turns of Current Coils were cut and as such meter was recording 65% less energy which clearly established a measured theft of energy by the consumer and as such on the basis of report of M.E. lab, the account of the consumer was overhauled from the date of installation of the meter till the date of its removal and a demand of Rs.67,864/- was rightly raised . In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the following authorities ; (i) Haryana State Electricity Board,Panchkula and another Vs Krishan Kumar; 1998(1)CLT 591 (ii) Rajasthan State Electricity Board and others Vs Santosh Mineral Industries ; 2003(1)CPC 570 However, the above point of arguments have been repelled by the learned counsel for complainants who stated that the meter in question was neither removed, packed in cardboard box/sealed in the presence of consumers, nor it was got tested from the laboratory in their presence. It was further submitted that there was no theft of energy and OPs illegally raised a demand of Rs.67864/- on the basis of a false report. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and found that here in the instant case the meter of the complainants was sent to the M& E lab for verification of seals of the meter and the said laboratory found the M& E seals tampered and turns of current Coils cut. However, the documents produced by OPs before the District Consumer Forum did not prove that the checking was done as per rules. Ex.R.1 is the spot checking report which does not bear signatures of the consumer or his representative. Ex.R-2 –Report of the M.E. lab also does not bear the signature of the consumer. There is no evidence on behalf of OPs to prove that the consumer or his representative was joined at the time of spot checking as well as at the time checking of meter in the M.E. Lab. There is no evidence that any notice was issued to the complainant as to why his account should not be overhauled as the meter was found to be slow. There is no evidence that the complainant was caught red handed while committing theft of electric energy. Further the officials of the OPs had been taking reading regularly but they never noticed that the seals were tampered. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum had rightly quashed the notice demanding a sum of Rs.67864/- as penalty and directed OPs to refund the deposited amount. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for OPs are not applicable to the facts of the instant case as in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs Krishan Kumar (Supra) the representative of complainant was present on the spot of checking and in other case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board there was contradiction about two versions about broken seal whereas in the case in hand, complainants or their representative was not proved to be present at the spot and in the ME Lab at the time of testing, so no benefit could be derived from the observations made in the above authorities. 8. Before parting with this order, it is observed that the interest allowed by the learned District Forum on the amount to be refunded @ 12% p.a. appears to be on the higher side and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and present day interest on various schemes of the banks, the same is reduced to 6% p.a. 9. But for modification in the rate of interest payable on the amount to be refunded, which has been reduced from 12% p.a. to 6% p.a , the appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | | 
