DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/185 of 12.3.2010 Decided on: 27.8.2010 Baldeep Singh, aged about 48 years S/o Sh.Bakshish Singh R/o H.No.306,Street No.7, Bajwa Colony, Near DMW Gurudwara, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. P.S.E.B. H/O The Mall Road, Patiala through its Secretary. 2. S.D.O.P.S.E.B.,Fort Sub Division, Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.S.K.Garg, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Baldeep Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That the complainant has been using the electricity through the residential connection vide account No.P21SR300768K and meter No.937889.That on 4.3.2010 all of a sudden the opposite parties without any prior information/notice (either written or oral) removed the electricity meter in absence of the complainant without any reason and justification. However, the employees of the opposite parties told the family members of the complainant that they are going to transfer the electric meter of the complainant due to fault in the said meter. That on 9.3.2010 the complainant went to the office of opposite parties for the enquiry of his electric meter, but the employees of the opposite parties gave no clue/information as to why the electric meter of the complainant has been removed. The complainant has apprehension that the opposite parties are making ma false and illegal case of theft/overload fine, against the complainant. That the action of the opposite parties for removing the electricity meter of the complainant without any prior notice/information is illegal, unwarranted and without any justification. That the opposite parties have acted in deficient and negligent manner and thus there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the opposite parties are indulging in unfair trade practices for which they are fully liable. That due to the deficiency in the service of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered a lot on account of mental and physical agony and harassment. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the electricity connection bearing account No.SR30/0768 was checked by the authorized and competent P.S.E.B. checking team consisting of Er.Balkar Singh-AEE alongwith Sh.Varinder Sharma-Meter Inspector and others vide checking report No.64/543 dated 4.3.2010 and it was found during its checking that “MCB- NO MCB, MTC-Found Tampered, M&T-Both Seal found tampered. Both ME seals of the meter found tampered and meter packed in cardboard box in the presence of the which amounts to theft of energy by illegal means by the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay for the same as per rules. That the above stated checking of above stated electricity connection was carried out in the presence of the complainant who has signed on the checking report for its authenticity. That a copy of the checking report was also supplied to the complainant at the time of its checking. That the above stated replaced / removed meter was properly sealed and packed in the presence of the complainant and the same has been kept in the safe custody for further action, if any. That based on the above stated checking report a legal demand memo No.346 dated 5.3.2010 amounting to Rs.38885/.- was made upon the complainant and it was also advised to the complainant that he may pay Rs.12000/- as compounding fee charges in his own interest to avoid any police action in the matter since complainant was found to be indulging in theft of energy by illegal means since the matter has been reported to Inspector,Anti Power Theft Police Station, P.S.E.B. Patiala vide memo No.347 dated 5.3.2010 to lodge necessary FIR in the case. The complainant is liable to pay the legal demand amount since the same has been leveled as per rules and there is no illegality in it. That the opposite parties have no objection, if the subject meter is got checked in the presence of the complainant from the M.E.Lab,P.S.E.B. Patiala if so directed by the Consumer Forum though there is no requirement to get the same checked from ME Lab P.S.E.B.,Patiala as the same was checked by the authorized and competent P.S.E.B. checking team at the time of its checking as per above stated checking report and it was found that all ME seals have been tampered by the complainant as endorsed in the above stated checking report. That the action by the opposite parties in this case has been legal, bonafide and transparent as per rules and there is no illegality in it. The complainant has no cause or reason to file the present complaint as thee has been no deficiency of any services on the part of the opposite parties to the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The allegation of opposite parties is that the premises of the complainant were checked on 4.3.2010 by the raiding party and on checking found that both ME seals of the meter were tampered with. Now the question arises whether from the mere fact that M.E.seals were tampered with, a case of theft of energy is made out? The answer is certainly not. It was incumbent upon the raiding party to install a parallel meter and should have noted difference in the energy consumed in both meters. Having not done so from the mere fact that seals were tempered with it cannot be said that theft of energy had been committed. The meter was not got checked from M&T Laboratory that it was running slow or was not running properly. In the absence of such evidence it cannot be held that complainant had committed theft of energy. On this point we are supported by the authorities HSWEB (Now HVPN) and others Vs. Bhushan Lal 2007(1) CLT 114 , Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd(HVPN) Vs.Gautam Plastic 2008(1)CLT 522 & DHBVNL Vs. Lakhmi Chand Bansal 2009(1) CLT 489. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions we are clearly of the view that the opposite parties have failed to establish their case of theft of electricity on the part of the complainant. 8. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:27.8.2010. President Member
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | , | | 
