DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.297 of 23.7.2007<br /> Decided on: 7.2.2008<br /> <br /> Amrik Singh son of Sh.Bhag Singh, aged about 47 years, resident of village Samla,Tehsil Nabha,District Patiala.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board ,the Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. S.D.O.,Operation Sub Division,Ghamroda,Tehsil Nabha,District <br /> Patiala.<br /> <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur, Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.B.M.Singh, adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Smt.Puja Puri, adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant,Amrik 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.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That the complainant is consumer of the P.S.E.B., having electricity connection bearing a/c No.RF07/0063, which is in the name of his father Sh.Bhag Singh who has expired on 20.11.93 and the connected load is 1.330 K.W. whereas sanctioned load is 4.26 K.W. The complainant is using the supply of the electricity against this account number since long and is paying the charges for the consumption of energy on the said connection regularly and nothing is pending against him. That the officers/officials of the opposite parties used to check the connection of the complainant regularly as per rules and always found the same in OK position. That the officials of the opposite party No.2 namely Sh.Nachhatar Singh,Gurmail Singh and Dharam Singh, visited the village of the complainant on 2.7.2006 to shift the meters of the consumers and placed them out side the premises of the consumers. They removed the electricity meter of the complainant as well as other consumers of the village on 2.7.2006 and installed the meters out side the premises of the consumers except the complainant. After about one hour they brought one meter inspector in the absence of the complainant and alleged that there is a whole existing on the backside of the meter and stated that it is a case of theft of electric energy. They got the signatures of the minor son of the complainant under duress. Before removing the meter they broke the MCB seal and MTC seal as per practice to install the same outside the premises of the complainant. The above seals i.e. and MTC were intact before the meter was removed. This fact is admitted by the opposite parties. That the true facts of the case are that three employees of the opposite parties namely Ss.Sh.Nachhatar Singh, Gurmail Singh and Dharam Singh used to visit the village of the complainant usually in order to check the electricity connections of the consumers and they came in the village about ¾ months back and stated that they were in need of a large quantity of milk in connection with the marriage ceremony of daughter of Sh.Nachhatar Singh, which was to be performed shortly. They demanded 40 KG milk from the complainant but the complainant told them that he would give 10KG milk on one day and 10kg milk on the next day. The above named employees came in the village and collected milk from each house. Thereafter they came to the premises of the complainant and saw a drum containing about 40 kg milk. The complainant asked them to have 1- kg milk, but they insisted that they would either take whole the milk or not even a single drop. The complainant told them that 30kg milk was to be given to the milk vendor on payment and in case he gave whole the milk to them they the milk vendor will go empty, which does not look nice and requested them to have 10kg milk today and 10 kg milk will be supplied to them on the next date. On this they left the premises of the complainant in anger without taking milk and threatened the complainant that he would have to face the consequences. In order to take revenge against the complainant they have implicated the complainant in the false case of theft of energy. That the complainant was surprised when he received a demand notice dated 4.7.2006 for Rs.4554/- alleging therein that the connection of the complainant was checked by the JE on 2.7.2006 and found that the complainant was stealing the electricity by making a hole in the meter. They threatened that in case the demand of Rs.4554/- is not met within seven days the connection of the complainant would be disconnected. That the demand notice dated 4.7.2006 demanding Rs.4554/- raised by the opposite party is illegal , ultravires, malafide without jurisdiction and is liable to be ignored and quashed on the grounds:-<br /> a) That all the seals affixed on the electronic meter were found intact then how a consumer can make any hole in the meter when the meter was duly packed in the box and duly sealed. The MCB and MTC seals were removed by the staff of the opposite party in order to install the meter outside the premises of the complainant.<br /> b) That the meter is still installed outside the premises of the complainant and the same has not been got checked from the ME lab that it was running slow or was not running properly.<br /> c) That the suspicion of the opposite party that the meter was tampered in that case it is mandatory to get the meter checked from the M.E.Lab after following proper procedure i.e. the meter should be removed and sent to the ME lab in the sealed card board box duly signed by the complainant and the concerned P.S.E.B. officer. The testing of such meter should be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative. but in the present case the proper procedure has not been adopted thus the opposite parties have violated its own rules and regulations.<br /> d) That there is no evidence to prove that when the meter was checked by the opposite parties at the premises of the complainant theft was being committed by fixing some instrument by the complainant.<br /> e) That the complainant has implicated in the false case of theft of energy as he could not fulfill the demand of the employees of the opposite parties to give them 40kg milk on the occasion of the marriage of the daughter of Sh.Nachhatar Singh about three months back. The so called hole made on the back side of the meter may be made by the employees of the opposite parties on the ground that they kept the meter with them more than one hour after removing the meter and in order to take revenge they made the hole in the meter of the complainant .The complainant cannot make any hole or handle the electric meter when the same was duly sealed and packed in a box.<br /> f) That had the complainant actually indulged himself for theft of energy the connection of the complainant should be disconnected on the spot as per rules and regulations of the Board, but no procedure has been adopted in this case.<br /> g) That in the present case the alleged hole has not been got tested form the M.E.Lab.<br /> h) That the signatures of the minor son of the complainant have been got under duress threatening him to disconnect the connection in case he refused to make his signatures on the so called checking report.<br /> That the complainant has been mentally harassed and tortured by the opposite parties. The electricity is an essential commodity and the deprivation of the same by the opposite parties caused huge loss, which even cannot be compensated in terms of damages. That the action and order of the opposite parties being illegally and without jurisdiction is deficiency in service and they are liable to pay damages and compensation for the same amounting to Rs.10,000/- under this Act. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant is not a consumer of the Board.The connection is in the name of Sh.Bhag Singh son of Sadhu Singh. No application was filed by the complainant for change of name of the connection in the name of the complainant from his father. The Board has prescribed the procedure for making the change of name of the connection in case a consumer expires. The complainant has not sought any remedy before the concerned office of the Board for allowing the change of name. The connection is not subject to periodical checking. The connection in dispute is of domestic category. The connection of the complainant was checked on 2.7.2006 by the concerned officers of the Board in the presence of Sh.Balwinder Dingh,representative of the consumer. The said Balwinder Singh is the son of consumer namely Amrik Singh. The consumer was caught of committing the theft of electricity energy by the checking officer/officials. The consumer was adopting the illegal means for committing the theft of electricity energy. The allegations as have been leveled by the complainant of calling the meter inspector after one hour in the absence of the complainant is absolutely false. The connection was checked by Jr.Engineer.It is denied that the son of the complainant is minor or the signatures of the minor son of the complainant were taken under duress. It is denied that the seals of the MCB and MTC were broken by the checking officer. In fact, MCB and MTC seals were found missing by the checking officer. It is denied that three employees of the opposite parties used to visit the village of the complainant to check the electricity connections of the consumer or they had come in the village about ¾ months back or they had stated that they were in need of large quantity of milk in connection of marriage ceremony of daughter of Nachhatar Singh. It is denied that 40KG milk was demanded from the complainant. It is denied that in order to take the revenge against the complainant the complainant has been implicated by the checking officers for commission of theft of electricity energy and also of using the unauthorized load. The complainant was well aware of the fact that he has been caught of committing the theft of electricity energy and also of using the unauthorized load. The demand of the board is legal. There is no illegality in any manner. It is denied that the all the seals affixed on the meter were found intact. It is denied that the consumer cannot make any hole in the meter. It is denied that the MCB and MTC seals were removed by the staff of the opposite parties in order to install the meter outside the premises of the complainant. In fact, the MCB and MTC seals were found missing by the checking officer. It is a case of theft of electricity energy. The theft is visible on the face of the meter. No further enquiry for confirmation of the said fact is required from the ME Lab. However, in any case, if the consumer so intends to get checked the meter from the ME lab then the Board has no objection in respect of the same. It is not necessary to get checked the meter from the ME Lab, if the hole in the body of the meter is visible and can be seen by checking officer himself. There is sufficient evidence that the consumer was committing the theft of electricity energy. The checking was conducted by a duly qualified technical person i.e.JE.It is denied that the minor son of the complainant has signed the checking report. In fact, the son of the complainant is major and the allegations regarding the signing of the checking report by the complainant under duress or threatening are absolutely false. It is denied that the complainant has been mentally harassed or tortured in any manner by the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service. The complainant is not entitled to any damages or compensation. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C1, copy of death certificate,Ex.C2, copy of representation,Ex.C3, copy of checking report,Ex.C4 and copy of notice,Ex.C5.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.R1 of Rajinder Chopra,affidavit Ex.R2 of Gurdarshan Singh, copy of checking report,Ex.R3 and copy of notice,Ex.R4.<br /> 6. The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the officials of the opposite parties visited the village of the complainant on 2.7.2007 to shift the electricity meter of the consumers and install the same out side the premises of the consumers. They removed the electricity meter of the complainant as well as of the other consumers of the village and installed the meters out side the premises of the consumers except the complainant. They removed the meter of the complainant and took it with them and after about one hour they came along with one meter inspector in the absence of the complainant and alleged that there was a hole on the back side of the meter and alleged that it was a case of theft of electricity enerty.He has further contended that they got the signatures of the minor son of the complainant under duress. Before removing the meter they broke the MCB seals and MTC seals as per practice to install the same out side the premises of the complainant. The demand notice dated 4.7.2007,Ex.C5, demanding Rs.4554/- raised by the opposite parties is illegal,ultravires,malafide without jurisdiction and contrary to the law and that it amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> 8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the connection of the complainant was checked on 2.7.2006 by the concerned checking officers of the P.S.E.B. in the presence of Sh.Balwinder Singh, representative of the complainant. The consumer was caught of committing the theft of energy by the checking officials. The consumer was adopting the illegal means for committing the theft of electricity energy. She has further contended that the complainant was committing the theft of electricity energy by making hole on the back side of the meter and consequently notice of assessment dated 4.7.2007,Ex.R4 of Rs.4559/- was raised upon the complainant. She has further stated that the checking report was prepared by the officials at the spot in the presence of Balwinder Singh son of the complainant.<br /> 9 We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel of the parties.<br /> 10. The allegation of the opposite parties is that the premises of the complainant were checked on 2.7.2006 by the raiding party and on checking found that MCB and MTC seals were found missing. Now the question arises whether from the mere fact that MCB and MTC seals were missing, 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 missing it cannot be said that theft of energy had been committed. The meter was not got checked from M.E.Lab that it was running slow or was not running properly. It is admitted case of the opposite parties that the meter was not got checked from M.E.Lab.In the absence of such evidence it cannot be held that complainant had committed theft of energy. The opposite parties have sent the notice date 4.7.2006 demanding Rs.4556/-on the basis of checking report dated 2.7.2007 is illegal and ultravires and amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> 11. 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 a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:7.2.2008.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />