BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : CC/10/28

Date of Institution : 2.2.2010

Date of Decision : 13.9.2010

Balbir Kaur aged about 65 years wife of Sh. Manjit Singh, resident of Teacher Colony, Gali No. 5, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Op. City Sub Division, PSEB, Faridkot.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Lakhbinder Singh counsel for the complainant with complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for the illegal and unlawful charges of Rs. 17,679/- vide letter No. 3098 dated 12.11.2009 and for illegal removal of the meter of connection of the complainant and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said notice and further to install the meter at the residence of the complainant and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she is consumer of the opposite parties having an electric connection bearing Account No. TD 21/274 with sanctioned load of 3.95 Kws. The complainant has received a letter no. 3098 dated 12.11.2009 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which the opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs. 17,679/- on account of alleged theft. The complainant neither tampered the seals of the meter nor committed any theft. The meter of the complainant was never checked in the presence of the complainant nor any copy of alleged checking report has been supplied to the complainant. Even the alleged letter does not consists of any alleged checking report. The meter of the complainant is installed outside the house of the complainant in a street and the same was removed in the absence of the complainant and supply has been made direct by the employees of the PSEB. The complainant after receipt of the notice approached the opposite party No. 2 so many times with the request to withdraw the demand of Rs. 17,679/- and installed the meter at the premises of the complainant but all invain, rather the opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to agree with the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 4.2.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, so the present complaint in the present form is not maintainable. The complainant was committing theft of energy, so also the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is admitted that the notice has been sent to the complainant in which the amount has been demanded from the complainant by the opposite parties. The connection of the complainant was checked by Sh. Shiv Avtar Singh, JE/Installation alongwith his team on 7.11.2009 and during checking it was found that the complainant had tampered with the meter. The complainant had again tried to join the seals. In this way, the complainant had been committing theft of energy. The said checking was done in the presence of Varinder Singh son of Manjit Singh who received the copy of the checking report and signed the same in token of its correctness. The meter was not installed in the street but at the time of checking it was installed in the premises of the complainant. The present amount has been charged as per rules and regulations and instructions of the PSEB. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, memo No. 3098 dated 12.11.2009 Ex.C-2 and evidence of the complainant was closed by order by this Forum vide order dated 15.6.2010.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Prit Pal Singh SDO City PSEB, Faridkot Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2, checking report Ex.R-3, meter Ex.R-4, copy of MCO Ex.R-5 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the amount of Rs. 17,679/- demanded by the opposite parties vide memo dated 12.11.2009 Ex.C-2 allegedly on the ground of checking dated 7.11.2009 Ex.R-3 are illegal and unlawful. The alleged checking was not made in the presence of the complainant or her representative. Alleged checking is also made by JE Installation who is unauthorized under Section 135 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Meter in this case stood installed outside the premises of the complainant and as such she was not under obligation to keep check thereupon and is not responsible for any tampering or interference therewith.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that checking of electricity meter in this case was made in the presence of son of the complainant who signed at two places to signify endorsement of the observations recorded on the physical inspection of the electricity meter and also receipt of copy of the checking report. In this respect, a specific plea has been taken at the bottom of page 2 of the written statement filed by the opposite parties. Evidently complainant has come to the Forum with unclean hands in the face of clear proof of theft of energy as proved by the concerned JE by way of his duly sworn affidavit which is further supported by actual production of electric meter in the Forum.

10. We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. Contrary to the stand of counsel for the complainant that checking in this case was not made either in the presence of the complainant or any of her representatives there is clear proof of checking in the presence of none other but her own son named Varinder Singh son of Manjit Singh. Said Varinder Singh not only endorsed the observations recorded on the physical inspection of the status of the meter on the spot which too stands installed inside the premises of the complainant but also signed the documents in support of the receipt of the copy of the checking report. Surprisingly enough, no affidavit of said Varinder Singh to the contrary has been brought on the file despite specific allegations in respect of his presence at the time of checking as recorded at the bottom of page 2 of the written statement filed by the opposite parties. Checking has been proved in this case by concerned JE by way of his duly sworn affidavit Ex.R-2, where he has specifically stated that he alongwith Harbans Lal checked the electricity connection of the complainant on 7.11.2009 and found that M&T seals thereof were tampered and reconnected with some adhesive. Actual meter was also produced in the Forum to vouchsafe the aforesaid observations. The evidence so led leaves no iota of doubt that complainant has tampered with the electricity meter installed inside her house for illegal purpose to abstract energy unauthorizedly and illegally. Mere fact that JE Installation is not authorized for checking in these circumstances is of no consequence. Therefore, charges demanded by the opposite parties on account of that vide memo dated 12.11.2009 cannot be said by any stretch of imagination to be illegal and unlawful.

11. In view of our above observations and findings we have found the complaint filed by the complainant Balbir Kaur as devoid of merits and as such the same is dismissed. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 14.9.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)