DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA.<br /> Complaint No.114 of 26.3.2007<br /> Decided on: 19.2.2008<br /> Sh.Anil Kumar, 1175.Guru Arjandev Nagar, Rajpura.<br /> -----------Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> The Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patila.<br /> <br /> ----------Opposite party.<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.Mohinder Singh,adv<br /> For opposite parties: Smt.Puja Puri,adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant,Anil Kumar 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 holder of electric connection No. IF 50/955 at his residence, which is domestic one and sanctioned load being 11.98 KW.No bill is pending for payment.It is served by East Sub Division,Rajpura.That some time back the opposite party changed the mechanical meter with electronic meter and took the same in open. No MCO was got signed from the complainant or his representative. That the complainant has now received a notice dated 20.3.2007 from the opposite party for making payment of Rs.15734/-failing which connection will be snapped. Time given is of 7 days. Before this no notice of any kind has been received. It is mentioned in the notice that all M.E.seals of the old meter were found tempered, hence theft case. How theft was being committed not shown. That no MCO was got signed from the consumer. No notice for reaching in M.E.Lab, Patiala was ever received. No M.E.Lab report has been sent by the opposite party. When the meter was taken/changed no such observation was made about the seals. In fact the meter was in a box, which was duly sealed with paper seals. This all is a force to fleece the complainant. That the action of the opposite party is arbitrary and illegal. The meter seals were in tact, not tampered with when it was removed/changed. It is all a mischief of the department. That the complainant is a consumer, facts stated above constitute consumer dispute, as the opposite party has refused to withdraw the notice, payment of bill is consideration. Their sending the impugned notice is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in terms of provisions of S.2 of the Act. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the meter of the complainant was changed as per policy decision of the board for changing the mechanical meters with the electronic meters. It is denied that the meter was not packed or was taken in open. The meter change order was affected in the presence of representative of the consumer. A notice was issued to the complainant dated 20.3.2007 for making the payment of Rs.15,734/- and it has been specifically mentioned in the same that the connection of the complainant can be disconnected by the board in case he fails to make the payment of the amount. It is denied that the consumer was not issued any notice before checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab.The meter of the complainant was changed vide M.C.O.dated 20.9.2006 which was effected on 23.11.206.The meter change order was effected by Er.Ashwani Kumar,J.E.II with the staff members of the Board. The same was changed in the presence of representative of consumer who had counter signed the same i.e. namely Ruchika.Meter was duly packed in a card board box at the site of the consumer and paper seal was also affixed. The consumer was informed the date and time of checking of meter in the M.E.Lab. The meter was duly checked in the M.E.Lab on 6.11.2006 by the joint checking of checking officer including the Addl.S.E./Enforcement,S.D.O./M.E.Lab,J.E.M.E.Lab, J.E.Operation Sub Division and representative of the consumer. The M.E.Lab after thorough checking of the meter had reported that the consumer has tampered all the M.E.Seals and the same have been found reaffixed. It is a case of theft of electricity energy. The meter was duly repacked in a card board box by the M.E.Lab and was handed over to concerned J.E.namely Sh.Ashwani Kumar for keeping the same in safe custody of the concerned office of East Sub Division,Rajpura.So there is a complete compliance of the procedure and there is no illegality in any manner. It is denied that the complainant was not informed about the date and time of checking of the meter or no notice was given to the consumer before checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab in the joint checking of the officers. It is denied that the report of the M.E.Lab is farce. It is denied that any action of the Board is arbitrary or illegal. It is denied that the meter seals were intact or were not tempered. It is denied that there is any mischief by the concerned office of the board. The allegations are false. The demand of the board is legal. The consumer is liable to make the payment of the same. There is no deficiency in service.The complaint is false. It is denied that there is any unfair trade practice. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and has prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C1, impugned letter,Ex.C2, copy of extract of challan,Ex.C3, copy of report of M.E.Lab,Ex.C4 and copy of MCO,Ex.C5.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.R1 of Jasbir Singh,SDO, affidavit Ex.R1/A of Ashwani Kumar and affidavit of Er.R.S.Bhathal,Ex.R2.<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. Sh.Mohinder Singh, adv. counsel for the complainant has argued that notice,Ex.C2, may be declared illegal and quashed on the ground of violation of rule of audi alteram partem enshrined in commercial circular Nos.45/98 and 8/99 issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board .He submitted that the meter installed at the complainant’s premises was removed and got tested without complying with the mandatory procedure laid down in the two circulars and without giving him notice of the date, time and place of testing in ME lab and therefore, the same should be declared illegal and quashed. In support of his arguments Sh.Mohinder Singh, relied upon the decision Tarsem Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 584 (P&H).<br /> 8. We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel. For the purpose of deciding the legality of demand notice, Ex.C2, it will be useful to take cognizance of the instructions contained in Commercial Circular 8/99, the relevant extracts of which are <br /> reproduced below:-<br /> “As per existing instructions contained in para 2© of C.C.No.45/97 dated 17.12.97, it is mandatory that all meters removed against any meter change order(MCO) are to be sent to M.E.Labs, in the sealed card box duly signed by the concerned P.S.E.B. Officers/ officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case, the consumer refused to sign the meter test results/report, such meters shall be kept in the sealed box by the Op.S/Divn.till the final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Disputes Settlement Committee or Civil courts, such sealed meter shall be returned to the M.E.Labs.Similar procedure is to be adopted in case of meters sealed by the Enforcement Agencies/Operation Organization in theft cases.<br /> It has been brought to the notice of this office that above instructions are not being followed in letter and spirit with the result that the Board is losing cases in the Distt.Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums. It has been viewed very seriously by the higher Authorities. Accordingly, it is desired that above instructions should be followed meticulously and any officer/official found lacking in the implementation of these instructions shall be held personally responsible.”<br /> 9. At this stage notice may also be taken of Clause<br /> (c) of commercial circular No.45/98.The same reads as under:<br /> “(c) In further ( further?) all the meters removed against any meter change order (MCO) shall be sent to M.E.Laboratory in the sealed Card Board Box duly signed by the concerned P.S.E.B. Officer/official and the consumer or his representative. The testing of meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case, the consumer refused to sign the meter test results/report, such meter shall be kept in the sealed box by the Operation/S/Divn. till the final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Dispute Settlement Committee or Civil Courts such sealed meter shall be returned to the ME Labs. Similar procedure shall be adopted in case of meter sealed by the Enforcement Agency/Operation Organisation in theft cases.”<br /> 10. A bare reading of the above re-produced provisions of the Commercial Circular shows that the testing of the meter removed against any meter change order is to be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative. This necessarily means that a notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date , time and place of the testing of the meter.<br /> 11. In our opinion the procedure contained in the above referred circulars must be treated as mandatory because the same is intended to protect the consumer against arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities of the Board and ordinarily the demand created in violation there of would be liable to be invalidated .The complainant has as mentioned above come forward with the plea that the meter was removed from his premises and got tested without complying with the procedure contained in commercial circular No.8/99.He has categorically averred that before removing the meter and getting it tested the concerned authority did not give him the required notice. This has not been controverted by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned demand is violative of the instructions issued by the Board and the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed on that ground alone.<br /> 12. 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:19.2.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />