BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 52

Date of Institution : 3.3.2010

Date of Decision : 9.11.2010

Gurpreet Chopra aged about 28 years s/o Bhagwan Dass resident of Village Bargari, Tehsil Jaitu District Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

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

2. Additional Superintending Engineer DS Division, PSEB, Kotkapura.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) Sub Division, PSEB, Bargari.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for charging the amount of Rs. 1,83,930/- vide letter No. 2056/58 dated 23.2.2010 to the complainant account No. SP 42/0092 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said notice and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is consumer of the opposite parties using SP electric connection Account No. SP 42/0092 installed in the purhcased premises of the complainant. The connection is being used for Atta Chakki for self employment of the complainant and his family. He received letter No. 2056/58 dated 23.2.2010 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which the demand of Rs. 1,83,930/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking of meter on dated 9.2.2010 in ME Lab by Senior Xen Enforcement Bathinda on account of theft of energy. The meter of the complainant was installed inside the properly sealed meter cupboard outside the premises of the complainant and he has no access to the meter. The meter was removed unpacked, unsealed from the premises of the complainant. No notice about the checking of the meter was given to the complainant before checking the meter. The meter was checked in the absence of the complainant. No copy of alleged checking report has ever been supplied to the complainant at any point of time not even with the letter of demand inspite of the fact note regarding attachment of copy is given on the checking report. The complainant never committed any theft of energy as alleged in the said letter. On receipt of said letter he immediately visited the office of the opposite party No. 3 and inquired about the amount demanded by the opposite party. He requested them to supply the copy of alleged checking report but no copy of the alleged checking report was supplied to the complainant, rather the opposite party No. 3 threatened to disconnect the connection of 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. 10,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 4.3.2010 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 is liable to be dismissed. There is no privity of contract with the present complainant nor does he fulfill the requirements of consumer as given in the Act. On merits, it is admitted that the present connection is working but the same is being used to run Atta Chakki. The said connection is installed in the name of Jangir Singh son of Faqir Singh. The present complainant has nothing to do with the opposite party. So, the present complaint in the present form is not maintainable. The connection is being used for commercial purpose. It is also admitted that the present notice has been sent in the name of Jangir Singh and he has been called upon to deposit the amount on the basis of checking report. The connection of the complainant was checked by Er. Ranjit Singh, AEE, Enforcement alongwith his team on 6.1.2010 and during the checking it was found that the meter was running slow to the tune of 65.61% which was checked by other instruments and further it appeared that meter had been tampered which was visible to the naked eye. Moreover, excess load was being used at the time of checking. The load of the premises was checked and 11.770 KW load was being used. The meter was immediately ordered to be removed and seal packed which was done by Tek Chand JE, who was also present at the spot. The whole checkinh was done in the presence of representative of the complainant Raju Singh who signed the same after receiving the copy of the same and after admitting its contents to be true and correct. Thereafter, meter was taken to ME Lab at Bathinda for its checking. Notice of the checking was given. Complainant was duly informed to be present at ME Lab so that the same is checked in his presence. But on the other hand undertaking was given by the representative of the complainant i.e. One Kuldip Singh, who is close relative of the present complainant that meter be checked in his absence. On the basis of said undertaking of the representative the duly packed and sealed meter was checked in ME Lab and during checking it was found that the seals were tampered. Body of the meter was also tampered. Internal checking of the meter was also done and it was further found that after making the joints, reading was being controlled. In this way theft was being committed. Thereafter, the present notice was served upon Jangir Singh with the request to deposit the amount. The amount has been calculated as per rules and regulations. The meter was seal packed immediately on its removal by Tek Chand JE. 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 his affidavit Ex.C-1, memo No. 2056 Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 13.2.2010 Ex.C-3, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-4, copy of sale deed Ex.C-5, copy of sale deed Ex.C-6, receipt No. 94 Ex.C-7, copies of bills Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of K.D. Kumar Ex.R-1, memo dated 23.2.2010 Ex.R-2, checking report Ex.R-3, challan Ex.R-4, checking report dated 1.2.2010 Ex.R-5, affidavit of Ranjit Singh Ex.R-6, affidavit of Tek Chand Ex.R-7, consent Ex.R-8, meter Ex.R-9 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file.

8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case is that the action of the opposite parties of charging Rs. 1,83,930/- vide letter dated 23.2.2010 Ex.C-2 on the basis of alleged ME Lab checking dated 1.2.2010 Ex.R-5 is illegal and unlawful. In his view, checking report Ex.R-5 is silent as to signatory who signed when the meter was seal packed. Further, ME Lab checking has been claimed to be on the basis of consent of representative of the complainant but the so called consent letter Ex.R-8 is signed by Jangir Singh. Still further, as per challan Ex.R-4 Tek Chand took the meter for testing to ME Lab. On the contrary, in the affidavit of Tek Chand JE Ex.R-7 the said meter is stated to have been taken to ME Lab by Sajan Singh. No affidavit of this person has been filed. Still further, in Ex.R-5 which is meter testing report percentage of slow functioning of meter is not mentioned. In Ex.R-4 which represents performance record of electronic meter percentage is differently given as 34.57%. Copies of bills Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12 represent bills of other consumers with more or less similar sanctioned load to show less consumption.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that the complainant is not their consumer and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. In fact, electric meter is installed in the name of Jangir Singh son of Faqir Singh and complainant has nothing to do with the opposite parties. It is further contended that first checking of electric meter in question was done on 6.1.2010 in the presence of Raju Singh. Since tampering of meter was suspected so a direction was issued for getting the same checked from ME Lab. On the consent of close relative of complainant named Kuldip Singh who consented to the checking vide Ex.R-8 in their absence. ME Lab report Ex.R-5 stands proved by Er. Ranjit Singh vide his duly sworn affidavit Ex.R-7. There is no inconsistency as to the improper speed as noted on spot inspection. In Ex.R-4 Sr. No. 1 relates to some Balwinder Singh son of Ajaib Singh whereas Sr. No. 2 pertains to Jangir Singh consumer of the opposite parties. As per learned counsel for the opposite parties sending of meter to ME Lab through Sajan Singh does not make any difference and copies of bills Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12 are totally irrelevant.

10. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. In para 3 of the written statement on merits it is specifically stated among other things that Er. Ranjit Singh AEE Enforcement alongwith his team had checked the connection in question on 6.1.2010 and it was found that the meter was running slow to the tune of 65.61%. Since it appeared that the meter had been tampered to the naked eye so, the meter was immediately ordered to be removed and seal packed which was done by Tek Chand JE who was present at the spot. The whole checking was done in the presence of representative of the complainant i.e one Raju Singh who signed the same after receiving the copy of the same. Thereafter, meter was taken to ME Lab for its detailed checking on undertaking of one Kuldip Singh representative of the complainant that meter be checked in his absence. On the undertaking so given the duly seal packed meter was checked in ME Lab and it was found that the seals were broken. Body of the meter was also tampered. On internal checking it was further found that after making the joints reading was being controlled and in this way theft was being committed. After that the demand notice was served upon Jangir Singh. Spot checking is signed by Raju Singh. There is nothing on record that said Raju Singh or Kuldip Singh has to do nothing with the complainant. As per copy of sale deed Ex.C-5 Kuldip Singh is husband of Simardeep Kaur who is joint owner of the premises where the electricity meter stands installed alongwith complainant Gurpreet Chopra. ME Lab checking is based on consent of representative of the complainant namely Kuldip Singh. Mere, signing of the said consent letter by Jangir Singh does not make this consent letter impermissible. During the checking meter was taken out from the sealed packing and the same was found tampered in the manner as already set out above while reproducing relevant part of para No. 3 of the written statement. In his affidavit Ex.R-7 Tek Chand has clarified that Er. Ranjit Singh alongwith him and other team members had checked the electric connection in question in the name of Jangir Singh on 6.1.2010 which was being used to run Atta Chakki. Many workers were working there at the time of checking. During checking it was found that meter was running slow to the tune of 65.61% when checked with ERS meter. Sanctioned load is 11.41 KW whereas the connected load was found to be 11.770 KW. Detail of connected load is mentioned in the checking report dated 6.1.2010. Tek Chand has specifically stated that checking was done in the presence of one Raju Singh, one of the employees working in the premises. Report was prepared in his presence and copy was handed over to him who after admitting its contents to be true and correct had signed the same. Mere reporting by him that meter was taken to ME lab for checking by Sajan Singh does not make any difference in view of the fact that as per observations of Er. Ranjit Singh AEE Enforcement Bathinda in ME checking report Ex.R-5, it was taken out from duly sealed box at the time of checking. Tek Chand JE has further stated in his affidavit that undertaking/consent was given to him by Kuldip Singh who introduced himself to the close relatives of Jangir Singh, the man whose name the connection is installed. Said Kuldip Singh has also put his signatures in his presence. It is worth pointing out that there is no findings in the ME Lab checking report as to the percentage of slow functioning of the electric meter. Report extract of which is also noted in performance record of electronic meter at Sr. No. 2 copy whereof is Ex.R-4 is also consistent with the ME Lab report. Since the slow functioning stood already noted on the basis of ERS meter, the same was not checked in the ME lab again. No reference thereof even is made in Ex.R-4. Percentage of 34.57% pertains to Sr. No. 1 relating of one Balwinder Singh son of Ajaib Singh. It bears repetition that as per copy of sale deed Ex.C-5 Kuldip Singh is joint owner of the Atta Chakki in question through Simardeep Kaur his wife.

11. In so far as the point of complainant being not the consumer of the opposite parties is concerned learned counsel for the complainant has taken help of sale deed Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 whereby it is proved that the premises in which the Atta Chakki and electric connection stands installed was purchased from Faqir Chand who in turn purchased the same from Sikander Singh son of Jangir Singh. Electric connection in question stands in the name of Jangir Singh as is clear from para No. 1 of the written statement on merits as also notice Ex.C-2. Therefore, being user and beneficiary complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. The allegation of absence of privity of contract between them cannot be accepted.

12. In view of our above discussion we have come to the conclusion that the opposite parties have succeeded in proving theft of energy by the complainant. Photocopies of bills of other consumers with more or less same sanctioned load from Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12 are totally irrelevant as it cannot be said with certainty that they are using the connection for equal hours and for equal purpose as the same is done by the complainant. In the light of our above observations and findings the complaint filed by the complainant Gurpreet Chopra is found to be 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: 9.11.2010

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