BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA Complaint No.176/17.10.2007 Decided on : 21.10.2008 Hem Raj S/o Sh.Midha Mal resident of Bareta Mandi, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa ......Complainant. Versus Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bareta Mandi, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Present: Sh.Sushil Bansal, Advocate, for the complainant. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the Opp. Party . Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: 1. Being the subscriber of domestic electric connection bearing Account No.MD16/0080-H, complainant Hem Raj (referred to as CC for short) is aggrieved by the demand of Rs.15,215/- raised through impugned notice No.2041 dated 2.8.2007 which is added in the impugned bill dated 5.10.2007, which demand, according to the CC, is illegal and wrong. As such, alleging deficiency in service, the present complaint is filed seeking reliefs of directing the OP to : a) withdraw the demand of Rs.15,215/- raised through impugned notice added in the bill dated 5.10.2007, b) pay to the CC a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. In reply, legal objections on the grounds of jurisdiction and maintainability are taken up. Opposite party admitting that no arrear of Contd.......2 : 2 : the bills were outstanding against the CC. However, it is the opposite party's case that on the request of CC, the meter in question was sent to M.E. Laboratory for checking where, during the course of checking, it was found that M.E. Seals were intact, but it was found that glass of the meter was found tampered and when the meter was opened there were found scratches inside the body of the meter. As such, it was a theft case for which a notice No.1430 dated 18.7.2006 was sent demanding the impugned penalty. It was not paid which was again demanded through the impugned notice dated 2.8.2007 which was added in the impugned bill dated 5.10.2007 which amount the CC has not paid. 3. Parties led evidence. 4. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after careful scrutiny of the evidence, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for these reasons. 5. It is the opposite party's evident case that earlier penalty was raised through notice dated 18.7.2006, Ex.OP-2 which was followed by impugned notice dated 2.8.2007 and which amount was added in the impugned bill dated 5.10.2007. Undeniably, the said demand has been raised on the basis of M.E.Laboratory report Ex.OP-1 which is dated 29.5.2006. It is nobody's case, neither in the reply, nor it finds mention in Ex.OP-1 that the M.E. Laboratory testing of the meter was carried out in CC's presence or he was notified of its test. There is nothing even a whisper as to that in the reply including Ex.OP-1. Also it does not boil down on record as to whether the copy of the M.E. Laboratory report ever accompanied the impugned notice dated 2.8.2007. Every thing seems to have been done in a hush hush manner without affording to the CC an opportunity of being heard before he was slapped with the impugned notice dated 2.8.2007. Even the copy of the Audit Report about which a mention is made in the impugned notice does not seem to have been made available to the CC nor, as already noticed, a copy of the M.E. Laboratory Contd.......3 : 3 : report was supplied to him under his proper acknowledgment. Faced with somewhat similar situation where the only ground of disconnection of electric supply to the complainant's factory with one phase of meter was not properly functioning. The excessive bill of Rs.1,69,128 was issued and complainant was constrained to pay Rs.85,000/- to get the electricity restored at the time of overhauling the account. It was observed that in case of one phase of meter not recording the reading, Punjab State Commission in P.S.E.B. & others Versus M.S.Arihant Processors 2002(II)C.P.C. 86 observed that in case of theft of electricity, the report of Audit Party without joining the complainant cannot be the conclusive proof of theft of electricity. 6. But even if opposite party case that there was tampering with the meter glass is taken as it is, even in that situation the law is well settled that mere tampering of meter will not constitute an offence of theft. Punjab State Commission in Sub Divisional Officer P.S.E.B and others Versus Niranjan Singh, 2003(I) CLT 172 dealing with somewhat similar situation held that simply saying that it was a case of theft of energy, as, glass of meter was found broken, was not enough to prove theft of electricity, especially, when, nothing has been brought on record as mentioned, neither the report of meter inspector, nor his affidavit was produced during the course of evidence. In our opinion this ruling seems to be on all fours with the facts involved in the present case, inasmuch as , in this case , as well, neither the person who prepared the Audit Report, nor the person who carried out M.E. Laboratory test comes to file an affidavit-statement in support of the defence version that the glass of the meter was found broken and there were scratches inside the body of the meter. In the absence of which, obviously the benefit of an adverse inference being drawn on account of non-filing of such vital evidence, cannot be withheld from the CC. 7. In this view of the matter, we allow the complaint and direct Contd.......4 : 4 : the opposite party to: a) withdraw the demand of Rs.15,215/- raised in the impugned notice dated 2.8.2007 and added in the impugned bill dated 5.10.2007 in the column of Sundry charges and allowances. b) Pay to the CC a sum of Rs.2,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation. 8. This order of ours shall be complied with within 60 days of its communication. 9. A copy of this order be supplied to each of party free of cost. File be arranged, indexed and consigned to records. Announced: 21.10.2008. Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
