DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.21/03.02.2009 Decided on : 08.05.2009 Sh. Harmesh Kumar S/o Sh. Banarsi Dass S/o Sh.Prabhdayal, Ramji Pradhan Wali Gali, Ward No.15, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Sub Divisional Officer, City, Punjab State Electricity Board, 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 the Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President This complaint has been filed by Sh. Harmesh Kumar son of Sh. Banarsi Dass, a resident of Mansa, against Punjab State Electricity Board, (in short called the 'board'), through its Sub Divisional Officer, Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), for setting aside impugned Memo dated 29.01.2009 and award of compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/- for physical and mental harassment and costs in the sum of Rs.2,000/- on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: 2. That he has secured electric connection bearing Account No. Contd.......2 : 2 : SR-18/536 from the opposite party for domestic purposes and, has been regularly making payment of amount of electricity bills, drawn upon him. As such, he is consumer of electric energy under the opposite party, but vide letter No.295 dated 29.01.2009, he has raised demand of Rs.23,964/-, which is illegal and is liable to be set aside, because the complainant has neither tampered with any part of his electric meter, nor he has ever indulged in theft of electric energy. The electric meter, after removal, has not been got tested from the M.E. Lab. and tampering of seals does not amount to commission of theft of electric energy. Since the complainant, has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to service of raising of demand of huge amount, and the opposite party has failed to withdraw the same inspite of being approached for the purpose, hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, has no locus standi and cause of action to file the instant complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint, because notice has been served upon the complainant, due to his indulgence in theft of electric energy; that the complainant has concealed the material facts about checking of his electric connection, on 24.1.2009 by Sh.R.K.Goyal, XEN (Enforcement) and other officials of the board and that they found tampering of the seals and body of the electric meter installed in his premises to facilitate commission of theft of electric energy, as such, his complaint, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On merits, the factum of issuance of electric connection, in the name of the complainant, for domestic purposes, service of impugned notice by the opposite party upon him vide Memo dated 29.1.2009, checking of the premises of the complainant by the checking team of the board led by Sh.R.K.Goyal, XEN and theft of electric energy by tampering with the seals of his meter and body thereof, is not Contd........3 : 3 : denied. It is also submitted that demand of Rs.23,964/- has been raised upon the complainant through the impugned Memo after provisional assessment by the competent authority as per rules on the subject. Rest of the averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit, Exhibit C-1, copy of impugned notice Exhibit C-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence photocopy of checking report Ext.OP-1 and closed evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant, Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that affidavit of the complainant, that he had never indulged in theft of electric energy, has gone uncontroverted, as no affidavit of any official, who was member of the checking team, has been tendered in evidence by the opposite party. Learned counsel has further submitted that checking has not been done in the presence of the complainant and parentage and address of the person, who is stated to have affixed the signatures on the checking report on his behalf, has not been disclosed and there is no evidence to establish that he is, in any way, related to him. Learned counsel argued that report of the M.E. Lab., has not been secured, as such, mere unsubstantiated allegations of tampering with seals of meter, does not prove the commission of theft of electric energy on the part of the complainant, which is a serious allegation and lead to serious consequences. Learned counsel further argued that averments made in the written version, by the opposite party, are also not corroborated by any evidence. Learned counsel urged that there is non compliance of rules framed by the board on the subject and there being Contd........4 : 4 : deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, impugned notice is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and complainant is entitled to seek compensation and costs from the opposite party, as demanded in the instant complaint. 7. On the other hand, Sh.K.C.Garg, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party, has submitted that complainant has not alleged any previous hostile animus towards the members of checking team, as such, officials of the board comprising the checking team, had no reason to submit false report against him and to fabricate the checking report, and deficiency in service cannot be assumed on the basis of affidavit of the complainant or due to any non compliance of the rules on the subject. Learned counsel urged that complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. Admittedly, electric connection bearing Account No. SR-18/536 is installed in the house of the complainant at Mansa and no amount was outstanding against him before service of impugned notice upon him by the opposite party. The opposite party has produced on record copy of checking report Ext.OP-1 which bears the signatures of one Shivdeep, whose parentage, address and relationship with the complainant, has not been disclosed. The copy of the checking report also bears a note to the effect that load of electric energy drawn by the complainant at the time of checking, was within the sanctioned limit. If that is so, then theft of electric energy cannot be presumed by drawing adverse inference due to tampering of M.E. Seals or opening of body of electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has denied the checking of the electric meter installed in his premises by the checking team of the board in his affidavit Ext.C-1 on solemn affirmation. The opposite party has not tendered affidavit of any member of the checking team to controvert the contents of the affidavit of the complainant. As such, factum of checking is also not free from suspicion. There is also non compliance of rules framed by the board on the subject, because checking Contd........5 : 5 : report does not bear the signatures of the Assessing Authority and details of evidence gathered by the members of the checking team as envisaged in Clause 3(d) of the Circular No.53/2006, issued by the board on the subject. There is no remark, on the checking report, regarding supply of copy of the above said report to the representative of the complainant, which is mandatory requirement under the rules framed by the board. As per Clause 3(e) of the above circular, issued by the board on the subject, the opposite party is supposed to send the copy of the checking report to the consumer subsequently by post in case checking has not been done in his presence, but the opposite party has not produced any such record showing that copy of the checking report was sent to the complainant through registered post or by any other means. Therefore there is clear non compliance of the above said provisions on the part of the members of the checking team. As such, in our considered opinion, complainant cannot be burdened with amount demanded from him on the basis of impugned Memo Ext.C-2, which is apparently illegal and arbitrary, because theft of electric energy is a serious offence and may have serious consequences, if established. The onus was heavy on the opposite party to prove the said fact by leading cogent and convincing evidence, which he has failed to discharge. Therefore, deficiency of service is proved on the part of the opposite party. As such, we are of the opinion that notice served upon the complainant by the opposite party, raising demand of Rs.23,964/-, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Since the complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to service of illegal demand, therefore, he is also entitled to payment of adequate amount on account of costs and compensation. 9. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and we set aside the impugned notice, Ext.C-2, served upon the complainant, vide letter No.295 dated 29.1.2009 raising demand of Rs.23,964/-, and burden the opposite party, in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation, and Contd........6 : 6 : in the sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs of filing of instant complaint with further direction, to refund the amount of Rs.8,000/-, if paid, by the complainant in terms of the interim order dated 03.02.2009, with interest, at the rate of 9 percent, from the date of deposit, till the date of actual payment. The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 10. The copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 08.05.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
