BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : CC/10/56

Date of Institution : 4.3.2010

Date of Decision : 10.9.2010

Surinder Kumar aged about 45 years S/o Lal Chand, Line Bazar, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

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

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) City Subdivision, 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. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.

Sh. M.S. Brar counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for charging the amount of Rs. 84,088/- vide letter No. 1346 dated 24.2.2010 issued to the complainant pertaining to Account No. LB 97/0382 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said notice and to pay Rs. 10,000/- 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 he is consumer of the opposite parties using NRS electric connection Account No. LB 97/0382. He received letter No. 1346 dated 24.2.2010 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which the demand of Rs. 84,088/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking of meter on dated 19.2.2010 in ME Lab by Sr. Xen Enforcement, Moga on account of theft of electricity. The meter was removed, unpacked, unsealed from the premises of the complainant. The meter was checked allegedly in the ME lab 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 electricity as alleged in the letter No. 1346 dated 24.2.2010. The complainant is using the electricity through the meter and paying the bills as per consumption of the meter. The meter at the premises of the complainant remained in the same condition as installed by the opposite party. The seals of the meter never got checked from the complainant at the time of installing the meter at the premises of the complainant. The meter at the premises of the complainant was working properly and recording the consumption correctly consumed by the complainant. On receipt of letter No. 1346 dated 24.2.2010 complainant immediately visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and enquired about the amount demanded by the opposite party. The complainant requested the opposite party No. 2 to supply the copy of alleged checking report but no copy of the alleged checking report was supplied to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 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. 10,000/- 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 5.3.2010 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 this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as the amount sought to be charged relates to compensation on account of theft of energy which can only be challenged before the appropriate competent authority as prescribed by the Electricity Act, 2003. Further, the connection in question is being used for commercial purpose in the busiest bazaar of Faridkot town having heavy sanctioned load 7.26 KW which cannot be expected to be run only for self employment of the complainant. The present case does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the matter is triable by the Civil Court. Detailed evidence and statement of witnesses and their cross examination is required. It is further alleged that the meter of the complainant was replaced in the presence of the complainant and under his signatures. The complainant gave his written consent to get the meter checked from ME Lab in his absence. The meter was sent to ME Lab Moga vide store challan dated 19.2.2010 where the same was checked by Er. S.P. Singh Senior Xen Enforcement, PSEB Moga alongwith Er. Harbhajan Singh AEE ME Lab Moga, Er. Upinder Singh JE ME Lab Moga and Sh. Narain Dass JE City Sub Division, Faridkot on the basis of the written consent of the complainant. During the course of checking the lash wire of both the ME seals of the energy meter were found broken and connected again. Meter body was also found tampered. It was declared a case of theft of energy at the spot. On merits, it is admitted that NRS connection bearing Account No. LB 97/0382 is installed in the premises of the complainant but it is denied that the connection is being used by the complainant exclusively for his self employment, rather the connection with huge load of 7.26 KW is being used for commercial purpose for gaining profits and is running in a big shop in the busiest bazaar of Faridkot town. It is also admitted that notice No. 1346 dated 24.2.2010 was issued to the complainant demanding the amount of compensation of Rs. 84,088/- on account of theft of energy on the basis of meter checking report dated 19.2.2010 of Senior Xen Enforcement, Moga alongwith other officers/officials of the opposite parties. The energy meter after replacement in the presence of the complainant was seal packed in his presence and under his signatures. The meter was checked in the ME Lab Moga on the basis of written consent of the complainant to get the meter checked in his absence. Copy of meter checking report was supplied to the complainant alongwith the notice of demand which was duly received by the complainant. The complainant by unauthorized and dishonest way tampered with the ME seals and body of the energy meter to control its actual consumption as is clear from the meter checking report. 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, notice No. 1346 Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 5.1.2010 Ex.C-3, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of P.S. Sandhu AEE City Faridkot Ex.R-1, copy of MCO Ex.R-2, copy of checking report dated 19.2.2010 Ex.R-3, copy of notice Ex.R-4, affidavit of Senior Xen Surinder Pal Singh Ex.R-5, affidavit of Harbhajan Singh AE Ex.R-6, affidavit of Opinder Singh JE Ex.R-7, affidavit of Sh. Somnath AJE Ex.R-8, store challan No. 30 dated 19.2.2010 Ex.R-9, consent of consumer Ex.R-10, calculation statement Ex.R-11, registered notice/memo No. 3716 dated 15.2.2010 Ex.R-12, copy of stamp register Ex.R-13, copy of registry receipt Ex.R-14 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 charged on the basis of ME Lab report dated 19.2.2010 Ex.R-3 vide letter dated 24.2.2010 is illegal and unlawful as ME Lab report is totally unreliable document inasmuch as name of the representative in first part thereof and seal number of box in which the meter was sealed is not stated therein. In para 1 of the preliminary objections seal packing is alleged to be done in the presence of the complainant under his signatures. Further, affidavits Ex.R-5, Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-7 claimed internal checking though no internal checking of the electricity meter is reported in the checking report Ex.R-2. Ex.R-10, the so called consent letter in support of ME Lab checking Ex.R-3 in the absence of the complainant was tendered at the time of rebuttal. The allegations in Ex.R-12, Ex.R-13 and Ex.R-14 are beyond pleadings. No notice to the complainant was given before the stated testing/ checking the meter in the ME Lab though the address of the complainant was with the opposite parties.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however argued that seal packing of the electric meter is admitted in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-4. Ex.R-12 is a notice sent to the complainant as a precaution despite of his consent letter Ex.R-10. According to him, test report is proved by way of duly sworn affidavits of concerned officers/officials Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-8.

10. After having given serious thought to the contentions in the light of evidence on record we have found that opposite party has founded test report Ex.R-3 on the consent letter of complainant Ex.R-10 which was discarded by it preferring issuance of notice to the complainant dated 15.2.2010 Ex.R-12. Shift of the stand of the opposite parties in this way supports the stand taken by the complainant in his supplementary affidavit Ex.C-4 that the employees of the opposite parties took his consent on the pretext that such consent is required to be given by every consumer whose meter has been changed. As a matter of fact, in the given set of circumstances such consent cannot be said to be legal one by any stretch of imagination. Opposite parties' own stand to prefer issuance of notice further supports this view as they themselves were not confident, specific and confirmed as to this consent letter. It is noticed that this notice was dispatched vide postal receipt Ex.R-14 on 16.2.2010. Vide this notice only 3 days time has been given to the consumer to appear for checking of his electric meter in the ME Lab against 7 days period required under the regulations for the purpose. In these circumstances, checking report Ex.R-3 inspires no confidence. It has other blemishes too therein. Electric meter in para 1 of this report is found to be sealed with the signatures of representative of the complainant against the stand taken by the opposite parties in their written statement that the electric meter was seal packed in the presence of the complainant under his signatures (see para 1 of the preliminary objections of the written statement). This report has no number and even the name of so called representative of the complainant. From para 2 of the affidavits Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6 it is clear that meter was sent to ME lab for internal check up. However, it is evident from the report Ex.R-3 that no internal checking of the electricity meter in this case was made. Testing has confined itself to only physical status of the meter by stating that its both two number seals were found tampered with, lash wires thereof found re-affixed after cutting and meter body was also found tampered. Idea of sending electricity meter of the complainant to ME Lab from these observations is not understandable, as such physical facts could be otherwise observed on checking of the electricity meter in this case. Therefore, in the absence of any internal checking of the meter the report of ME Lab does not inspire any confidence.

11. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings, the theft of energy in this case has been remained to be proved by way of tampering of the meter by the complainant as alleged. So, complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 84,088/- charged by them vide letter No. 1346 dated 24.2.2010 from the complainant alongwith all the surcharges, if any, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Any amount, if already deposited by the complainant with regard to above mentioned charges of Rs. 84,088/- vide letter No. 1346 dated 24.2.2010 with the opposite parties, be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in his next bills. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 10.9.2010

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