consumer forum mansa consumer forum mansa consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/148
Avinash Kumar
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
PSEB
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Neena Rani Gupta 2. Sh Sarat Chander
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.148/22.9.2008 Decided on : 23.04.2009. Avinash Kumar son of Sh. Sham Lal, resident of Water Works Road, Mitwa Street, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board(City), Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. S.K. Singla, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. K.C. Garg, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh. Sh. Sarat Chander, Member. Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh. Sarat Chander, Member 1. This order shall dispose of complaint, dated 22.9.2008, filed by, Sh. Avinash Kumar, son of Sh. Sham Lal, resident of Water Works Road, Mitwa Street, Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the board) for setting aside notice, served vide Memo no. 2102 dated 10.9.2008 and for payment of compensation, to the tune of Rs. 2,000 and costs, in the sum of Rs. 1000/-. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is as under: 2. That electric connection, bearing Account No. WK-35/443 has been secured by him, for domestic purposes and has been installed in his house, situated in Mitwa Street, Water Works Road, Mansa. The complainant, has been paying amount of electricity bills, drawn upon him, for electric energy, consumed through the electric meter in question, as such he is consumer of electric energy, under the opposite party, who has served notice, upon him, vide his Memo no. 2102 dated 10.9.2008, raising Contd....2...... : 2 : demand of Rs. 5882/-. The said memo is illegal and not binding upon the complainant, because it has been issued, on the basis of the theft by tempering, with the M&T seals of his electric meter, which does not file within the ambit of theft. The complainant has never indulged, in theft of electric energy, by tempering with electric meter The opposite party has neither supplied, copy of checking report nor checking has been done as alleged, in the notice. Since the complainant has been subjected, to mental and physical harassment, due to service of illegal notice, served upon him by the opposite party. Hence the complaint. 3. The notice of complaint was given to the opposite party, who filed, written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections: that complainant, has misrepresented the factum of checking of electric meter, by the team of the board, on 10.9.2008, in his presence; that demand of Rs. 5,882/-, has been rightly raised, in the impugned notice, after provisional assessment, by the competent authority; that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, because it pertains to commission of theft of electric energy; that the complainant has no locus standi, to file the complaint and he has filed, the complaint, to harass the opposite party, with malafide intention, as such, the same is liable, to be dismissed, with compensatory costs. On merits, the factum of issuance of electric connection, in the name of complainant, for domestic purposes and service of notice, upon him, raising demand of Rs. 5,882/- has been admitted, but it is submitted, that on 10.9.2008 in the presence of complainant, meter installed in the premises of the complainant, was checked, by Sh. Ajaib Singh, Executive Engineer of the board and it was found, that he has tempered, the M&T seals of his meter and on being asked to affix his signatures, on the checking report, he refused to do so. It is denied, that the complainant, has been subjected, to mental and physical harassment and is entitled, to compensation and costs. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied and a prayer for dismissal, of the complaint, has been made. 4. Both the parties have led oral and documentary evidence Contd....3..... : 3 : before they closed their evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through, case file carefully with their able assistance. 6. It has been argued by Sh. S.K. Singla, Advocate learned counsel for the complaiannt, that mere tempering of the seals, does not mean amount to commission of theft of electric energy, as alleged by the opposite party. Learned counsel has further submitted, that electric meter removed, from the premises of the complainant, has not been got checked from M.E. Lab. and in the written version, the opposite party has submitted, that checking was done, in the presence of the complainant, but in his affidavit of, Sh. Ajaib Singh, SDO, it was mentioned that the checking was done, in the presence of his father, Sh. Sham Lal. Learned counsel has further argued, that neither any proof of supply of copy of checking report, has been produced, nor details of evidence gathered at the time of checking are mentioned in the said document, tendered in evidence by the opposite party, as such impugned notice, is liable, to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party, Sh. K.C. Garg, Advocate has submitted, that members of checking team, reported the tempering of seals and father of the complainant, who signed the report after admitting the contents of checking report and receiving copy of said document. Learned counsel has also submitted, that it is not mandatory, that electric meter, be checked by M.E. Lab., because tempering of the seals, were visible to naked eye. The learned counsel has argued, that the consumer himself is to file application, if he intends, that electric meter, removed from his premises, got to be checked but no such action, has been taken, by the complainant, inspite of notice served upon him, as such, there is no deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party, because of which, he may be burdened with compensation and costs or impugned Memo may be set aside. 8. The stand taken by the opposite party, in the written version and affidavit of Sh. Ajaib Singh, SDO, about the presence of person at the time of checking on behalf of complainant is contrary. In written version, Contd.....4.... : 4 : it has been stated, that the complainant, was present, at the time of checking, but he refused to append, his signatures, on the checking report, but in the affidavit of Sh. Ajaib Singh, SDO, it has been mentioned that checking was done, in the presence of his father Sh. Sham Lal, who signed the report, after admitting the contents of checking report. The name of Sh. Ajaib Singh, by the checking team, is also not found mentioned in written version, filed by the opposite party, as member of the checking team. As such the factum of checking, is itself not free from suspicion. 9. Moreover, as alleged in the checking report, Exhibit OP-2 and notice Ex. C-2, the complainant was found committing theft of electric energy, by tempering of M&T seals of electric meter, installed in his premises. In our opinion the mere tempering of seals, does not amount, to theft of electric energy. In column 6 of checking report,it has been stated, that complainant has tempered with MTC seals, but in the remarks column Ex. OP-2, it is alleged that he has tempered with M&T seals. As such factum of checking, in itself is not free from suspicion. There is no document on record suggesting that after removal of meter, from the premises of the complainant, it was checked by M.E. Lab. in his presence. The complainant has right to seek checking of electric meter, from M.E. Lab. in his presence but opposite party was duty bound, to take such action, after service of notice, upon him. The checking report, also does not show, the details of evidence, gathered by the members of, the checking team and there is no proof of service of notice, either on the complainant or upon his father subsequent to checking through registered post or otherwise.. Therefore, there is non compliance, rules framed by the board to enable the consumer to file appropriate reply or objections, after perusing the checking report, if aggrieved by any unjust or illegal action. 10. In the light of our above discussion, we have come to the conclusion, that there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party and who is liable to pay compensation, to the complainant, for physical and mental harassment and costs of filing of the instant complaint. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and set aside, the impugned Memo No. 2102 dated 10.9.2008 which is illegal and Contd....5.... : 5 : the opposite party is burdened, in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, as compensation and in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, as costs, incurred by the complainant, for filing of the instant complaint. They are further directed, to refund the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant, in term of interim order, dated 22.9.2008, along with interest, at the rate of 9 percent per annum, from the date of deposit, till date of actual payment. The compliance of the order be made, within the period of two months, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. 12. File be indexed and consigned to record. Announced 23.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
