DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.139 of 12.04.2007<br /> Decided on: 14.11.2007<br /> <br /> Dr.Vijay Singla aged 53 years, son of Sh.Faqir Chand, R/o 237 Bharpur Garden, Patiala.<br /> <br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board,Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.<br /> 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board,Patiala<br /> Cantt.,Tehsil and District Patiala.<br /> <br /> <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur,Member<br /> <br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.Rohit Mehsempuri,adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Smt.Puja Puri,adv.<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant, Dr.Vijay Singla 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 Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman/Secretary Patiala and Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board,Patiala Cantt.,Tehsil and District Patiala - The opposite parties.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That the complainant is resident of Bharpur Garden,Patiala Tehsil and District Patiala and is having Electricity Connection with Account No.PG07/0616.That the complainant is a reputed person as he is running dental clinic at Nabha Gate,Patiala and his son is also doctor and they cannot think about the theft of electricity which has been alleged by the opposite parties in order dated 5.3.2007.That the opposite parties issued a letter No.25489 dated 5.3.2007 in which the complainant has been penalized with Rs.17,387/- illegally and against law when the complainant is not at a fault. That the opposite parties have also illegally told in their letter that during the checking the complainant was found doing theft of the electricity, but there is no such evidence with the opposite parties and the complainant has been charged with huge amount without any notice. It is to be made clear that the status of meter always remained OK and it is to be mentioned here that the opposite parties disconnected the old meter from the house of the complainant without any notice and reason and the new digital meter was installed and the old meter was taken by the officials of the department without sealing the meter in the presence of the complainant. So there is no fault of the complainant as the meter was taken by the opposite parties in the right condition and no receipt was given to the complainant. That the opposite parties sent the notice to the complainant to pay the amount of Rs.17,387/-as according to them there was a hole in the meter but no such notice was given to the complainant at any stage. Moreover, the opposite parties were duly bound to seal the meter intact, if there was any such problem in the meter. The meter was to be opened in presence of the complainant but the opposite parties failed to give notice to the complainant and the complainant was never asked to join the proceedings of technical Lab. That the complainant is regularly paying the bill to the opposite parties and the meter reader never made any complaint as mentioned in the above said letter and the department also failed to issue any prior notice to the complainant which is a mandatory provision of law. The complainant is using the electricity as per his sanctioned load and there is no theft on the part of the complainant. That the complainant cannot be punished due to the illegal act of the opposite parties. That the issuing of illegal order without any fault of the complainant is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. That the opposite parties created un-necessary harassment to the complainant when there is no fault of the complainant, so the opposite parties are liable to be penalized for damage and mental torture to the complainant in the tune of Rs.50,000/-alongwith costs of the complainant. That the complainant has got no other speedy remedy except to file 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 denied that the complainant was not committing the theft of electricity energy. In fact, the M.E.Lab. has reported that it is a case of theft of electricity energy as it was detected that there was hole in the body of the meter. The demand as has been raised is a legal demand. There is no illegality in any manner. When the meter was replaced by the concerned office of the board for installing a new electronic meter then the true facts came into the knowledge of the board. The meter of the complainant bearing meter No.150730 was ordered to be changed with a new electronic meter as per APDRP Scheme of the board. A new meter bearing meter No.06328065 was installed in the premises of the complainant. The meter change order was affected on 12.2.2007 in the presence of representative of the consumer. The meter which was removed from the premises of the consumer was duly packed in a card board box. The consumer was advised to attend the M.E.Lab proceedings of checking of meter on 2.3.07.The meter was checked in the M.E.Lab along with other meters of the concerned Sub Division of Cantt Sub Division. The M.E.Lab. had thoroughly checked the meter and after checking the same had reported as under:-<br /> “Hole in meter body, Temper of the meter”<br /> So from the report of M.E.lab it is crystal clear that the complainant was committing the theft of electricity energy by adopting illegal means. The demand has been raised as per rules. The meter was not required to be sealed and there is no such provision or purpose for such sealing.However,the meter was duly packed in a card board box and the concerned J.E. who had removed the meter had also packed the same and had affixed the paper seal on the card board box containing the meter. The complainant had chosen not to attend the M.E.Lab, so the question of opening the meter in his presence does not arise at all. The meter reader is only required to record the reading of the meter. There is no dispute of load and no amount has been charged from the consumer for using the unauthorized load. It is denied that the complainant was not found by the M.E.Lab of committing the theft of electricity energy. It is an established case of the theft of energy. There is no illegal act of the board. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service. The complainant is liable to make the payment of the amount for which demand has been raised. The complainant is not entitled to any damages or costs. 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.CW1/A, copy of receipt No.96 dated 16.3.2007,Ex.C2 and photocopy of notice dated 5.3.2007,Ex.C3.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.R1 of Harvinder Pal Singh, affidavit, Ex.R2 of Kuldeep Singh,JE, affidavit,Ex.R3 of Surinder Singh,JE, MCO, Ex.R4, copy of ME challan report,Ex.R5, copy of memo dated 5.3.2007,Ex.R6 and copy of memo dated 5.3.2007,Ex.R7.<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 notice ,Ex.C3, vide which the amount of Rs.17387/- has been claimed may be declared illegal and quashed on the ground of violation of the 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 M.E.Lab and therefore, the same should be declared illegal and quashed. In support of his arguments Sh.Mehsempur,adv. 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 the demand notice,Ex.C3, it will be useful to take cognizance of the instructions contained in Commercial Circular No.8/99, the relevant extracts of which are 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 PSEB Officers/Officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer of 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 Organsation 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 /> At this stage, notice may also be taken of Clause© of Commercial Circular No.45/98.The same read as under:-<br /> “( c ) In further ( future?) 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 PSEB officer/official and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the p5resence 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/Div.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 M.E.Labs. Similar procedure shall be adopted in case of meter sealed by the Enforcement Agency/Operation Organization in theft cases.”<br /> 9. A bare reading of the above reproduced provisions of the Commercial Circular show that the testing of the meter removed against any MCO 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 /> 10. 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 arbitrarily 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 principle of natural justice and is liable to be quashed on that ground alone. That being so we hold that issuing of the illegal order without any fault of the complainant is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is allowed and the bill cum notice,Ex.C3 is set-aside and the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.17380/-deposited by the complainant vide receipt,Ex.C2 dated 16.3.2007 with Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of this 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:14.11.2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member-1<br /> <br /> <br />