DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.75 of 23.2.2007<br /> Decided on: 28.1.2008<br /> <br /> J.S.Thind (Jarnail Singh Thind) s/o S.Kartar Singh r/o 691, SST Nagar, Patiala.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. P.S.E.B., The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2. Asstt.Executive Engineer, Fort Sub Division, Patiala.<br /> <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <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.Balraj Singh,adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj,adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant,J.S.Thind 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 holding a domestic electric connection in his name bearing a/c No.RP-40/0379 and as such the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Act and the complainant is thus competent to file the present complaint. That the sanctioned load of the said electric connection is 10.38 K.W.That the complainant has been regularly depositing the electricity consumption bills so issued by the opposite parties. The status of the meter is being shows as ‘O’ in the bills issued by the opposite parties. That on 20-21/12/2006 the electricity meter of the above said connection which is three phase, was changed in routine. That the opposite parties issued a notice vide No.2221 dated 20.12.2006 in which the amount of Rs.17945/- has been demanded from the complainant and in this notice it has been alleged that the load at the time of checking was excess and has further alleged that the two phases of the meter were found dead and now the complainant has come to know that the opposite parties have issued another notice for the double of the amount than the amount as mentioned in the notice dated 20.12.2006.The opposite parties have now issued a bill dated 30.3.2007 and has demanded the amount of Rs.35873/- as sundry charges. That the demand raised by the opposite parties vide notice dated 20.12.2006 and thereafter vide bill dated 30.3.2007 demanding the amount of Rs.35873/- as sundry charges is illegal null and void not binding on the complainant and the complainant is not liable to pay any such amount. That the meter was removed by the opposite parties in routine and it was not packed according to the rules of the P.S.E.B. Further more at the time of the checking of the meter the complainant was not called in the M.E.Lab. by the opposite parties. It has been wrongly alleged in the notice that 2Q of the meter pulse are not working. That no opportunity of being heard was given to the complainant before issuing the said notices and the said notice is thus illegal, and is not binding on thecomplainant.That the opposite parties have no right, title or authority to recover any amount and to raise any demand. That the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested the opposite parties to withdraw the said notice and not to recover the said amount but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and threatened to recover the amount forcibly and to disconnect the electric connection. That the complainant has suffered mentally and physically due to the issuance of the said demand notices. Hence 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 alleged that the amount of Rs.35873/-charged vide legal demand No.2262 dated 29.12.2006 has not yet been deposited by the complainant/consumer which he is liable to pay as per rules and regulations. That the legal demand memo No.2221 dated 28.12.2006 amounting to Rs.17945/- was initially sent, but it was not properly calculated inadvertently due to an over sight and therefore the same was revised vide legal demand memo No.2262 dated 19.12.2006 amounting to Rs.35873/- as per rules and regulations and there is no illegality in it. That the checking as well as removal/replacement of the meter was carried out in the presence of complainant/his representatives, who have signed for its authenticity. The meter was replaced /removed vide MCO No.026/66388 dated 28.12.2006 effected on 10.1.2007 in the presence of complainant/his representative and the same was properly packed and sealed in a card board box as per laid down procedure. However, the meter is not required to be checked up further from ME lab, P.S.E.B. for obvious reasons since the same has already been checked by the competent checking team in the presence of the complainant .However, the meter duly packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant/ his representative is kept in safe custody for further action, if any. The complainant/ his representative were clarified the details of amount charged as per memo No.2262 dated 29.12.2006 amounting to Rs.35873/- by the concerned officials of the opposite party No.1 and the complainant was advised to deposit the amount in his own interest to guard against any further action in the matter since the legal demand of Rs.35873/-made upon the complainant by opposite parties vide memo No.2262 dated 19.12.2006 is legal, bonafide and transparent and there is no illegality in it. The complainant has no cause or reason to file the present complaint. It is the opposite party who would suffer irreparable loss in case the complainant succeeds to avoid making payment of legal demand of Rs.35873/-made upon the complainant by the opposite parties vide memo No.2262 dated 29.12.2006 as per laid down procedure, rules and regulations. The complainant is not entitled for any relief or damages as averred by the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied. It is further pleaded that all the allegations in the complaint are false and devoid of truth. The factual position has been deliberately concealed by the complainant with ulterior motive to avoid payment of legal demand made upon the complainant/consumer vide initially memo No.2221 dated 28.12.2006, which was revised vide memo No.2262 dated 29.12.2006 amounting to Rs.35873/- by the opposite parties which is as per laid down procedure existing rules and regulations. That earlier also complainant’s electricity meter bearing account No.40/379 has been found to be tampered by the complainant with ulteri9or motive, which amounts to theft of energy by illegal means. That electricity meter bearing a/c No.40/379 of the complainant was found with hole at the time of its removal/replacement vide MCO No.189/61468 dated 15.12.2004 i.e.”3Q which amounts of theft of energy by illegal means by the complainant and accordingly the complainant/consumer was charged an amount of Rs.16549/- for the same vide memo No.2770 dated 23.12.2004 which has since been paid by the complainant since the complainant admitted his fault for having tempered the meter to pilferage the energy by illegal means which amounts to theft of energy by the complainant for which the complainant was required to pay. The meter was removed/replaced in the presence of the complainant/his representative, who has signed on the MCO for its authenticity. That once again within span of less than three months of installation of new meter, which was installed vide MCO No.189/61468 dated 15.12.2004, effected on 22.12.2004 the electricity meter was again reported to be dead , and the same was replaced/removed vide MCO No.5/59280 dated 11.3.2005 effected on 2.5.2005.The meter was replaced/removed in the presence of the complainant/his representative, who has signed for its authenticity. That once again during the checking conducted on 20.12.2006 by the competent ad authorized P.S.E.B. checking team comprising of Sh.Varinder Kumar and Sh.Pawan Kumar(Meter Inspector), Distribution East division, P.S.E.B., Patiala the meter bearing a/c No.RP-40/379 was detected with “two phases found dead”i.e. (Two phases Found Dead) 2Q which amounts to that though the complainant/consumer has been utilizing full supply of energy but the meter has been showing 1/3 reading of the consumption because of meter’s two phases found dead i.e. “2Q a s stated above and the complainant /consumer is liable to pay for the same as per laid down procedure, rules and regulations and there is no illegality in it. Accordingly complainant’s a/c No.40/379 has been overhauled for the period 07/2006 to 11/2006 i.e. 6 months prior to date of checking as per laid down procedure, rules and regulations. The above checking as well as replacement/removal of the meter was carried out vide checking report No.63/1044 dated 20.12.2006 and MCO No.026/66388 dated 28.12.2006 in the presence of the complainant/his representative who have signed on the checking report as well as above stated MCO for its authenticity .That action of the opposite parties in this case has been legal, bonafide and transparent and there has been no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties to the complainant/consumr.Therefore, the complainant/consumer has no cause or reason to file the present complaint which is liable to be dismissed with costs.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C1, receipt of bill dated 7.12.2006,Ex.C2,original bill dated 28.11.2006,Ex.C3, original receipt dated 9.8.2006,Ex.C4, original bill dated 31.7.2006,Ex.C5, copy of bill dated 1.6.2007,Ex.C6, copy of bill dated 1.6.2007,Ex.C7 and copy of bill dated 30.3.2007,Ex.C8.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.R1 of Er.Iqbal Sinth,AEE, affidavit,Ex.R2 of Pawan Kumar,JE, affidavit,Ex.R3 of Brijinder Kumar,JE, copy of MCO dated 15.12.2004,Ex.R4, copy of memo No.2770, dated 23.12.2004,Ex.R5,copy of MCO dated 11.3.2005 Ex.R6, copy of checking report No.63/1044 dated 20.12.2006,Ex.R7 copy of MCO dated 28.12.2006,Ex.R9 and copy of memo dated 29.12.2006,Ex.R10.<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 complainant is holding three phase domestic electricity connection and the sanctioned load of the same is 10.38 K.W..He has further contended that the status of the meter was being shown as ‘O’ in all the bills issued by the opposite parties. He has further contended that on 20/21.12.2006 the meter was changed in routine by the opposite parties and a notice vide No.2221 was issued by the opposite parties on 20.12.2006 in which an amount of Rs.17945/- had been made from the complainant and it was alleged that at the time of checking the load was found excessive and two phases of the meter were found dead and later on the demand for the double of the amount i.e.35873/- was made by the opposite parties vide bill dated 30.3.2007 ,Ex.C8.He has further contended that the demand raised by the opposite parties vide notice No.2221 and the bill dated 30.3.2007 ,Ex.C8, are illegal, null and void not binding upon the complainant. He has further contended that the meter which was removed from the house of the complainant was not packed according to the rules of the P.S.E.B. and at the time of checking of the meter the complainant was not called in the M.E.Lab and the meter was not tested as per the sales manual of the P.S.E.B. and it was wrongly alleged in the notice that 2Q of the meter pulse are not working.<br /> 8. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that payment of legal demand was made upon the complainant vide memo No.2221 dated 28.12.2006,Ex.R9 which was revised vide No.2262 dated 29.12.2006,Ex.R10,amounting to Rs.35876/- as per laid down rules and regulations. He has further contended that the complainant is a habitual offender .Since earlier also his electricity meter bearing a/c No.40/379 was found with hole at the time of its removal/replacement vide M.C.O.No.189/61468 dated 15.12.2004.He has further contended that the complainant was charged an amount of Rs.16549 for the same vide memo No.2770 dated 23.12.2004,ex.r5 which has not been paid by the complainant. He has further contended that once again within a span of less than thee months an installation of new meter which was installed vide MCO dated 15.12.2004 effected on 22.12.2004,Ex.R4 and Ex.R6.The meter was again reported to be dead and the same was replaced vide MCO No.5/59280 dated 11.3.2005 effected on 2.5.2005,Ex.R6. He has further contended that again during the checking conducted on 20.12.2006 by the competent and authorized P.S.E.B. checking team the meter bearing a/c No.RP-40/379 was detected with two phases dead. Accordingly account No.40/379 was over hauled for the period July/2006 to November/2006 i.e. six months prior to date of checking as per laid down procedure, rules and regulations. He has further contended that the checking as well as replacement/removal of the meter was carried out vide checking memo No.63/1044 dated 20.12.2006,Ex.R7 and MCO No.026/66388 dated 28.12.2006,Ex.R8 in the presence of the complainant/his representative who had signed on the checking report as well as on the MCO for its authenticity. He has further contended that the action of the opposite parties is legal,bonafide and transparent and there has been no illegality in it. There has been no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. He has further contended that the demand memo No.2221 dated 28.12.2006,Ex.R9, amounting to Rs.17945/- was initially sent but it was not arbitrarily calculated inadvertently due to an oversight and therefore, the same was revised vide legal demand memo No.2262 dated 29.12.2006,Ex.R10,amounting to Rs.35873/-.He has further contended that the checking as well as replacement of the meter was carried out in the presence of the complainant/his representative who had signed for its authenticity. The meter was replaced vide MCO dated 28.12.2006,Ex.R8 effected on 10.1.2007 in the presence of the complainant/his representative and the same was directly packed and sealed in a card board box as per laid down procedure. However, the ,meter was not required to be checked further from M.E.Lab P.S.E.B. since the same has already been checked by the competent checking team in the presence of the complainant.<br /> 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel of the parties.<br /> 10. The perusal of the MCO No.026/663388 dated 28.12.2006 effected on 10.1.2007,Ex.R8 shows that it was done in the presence of the complainant/his representative and the same was directly packed and sealed in a card board box. The complainant/his representative had duly signed the MCO,Ex.R8.The checking report,Ex.R7 and the MCO,Ex.R8 were duly signed by the complainant/his representative for its authenticity .That being so it must be held that the action of the opposite parties in this case has been legal,bonafide and transparent and there has been no illegality in it. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has no cause or reason to file the present complaint. The pleas taken by the opposite parties in the reply have been fully corroborated by the officials who filed their affidavits. They are not shown to have any ill will or enmity against the complainant so as to make a false report.<br /> 11. Therefore, raising of the demand on account of theft of energy by the recorded consumer would not be deficiency of service.Therefore,the complaint is dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances, however, parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:28.1.2008.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />