DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.65 of 20.2.2007<br /> Decided on: 28.1.2008<br /> Jeet Kaur w/o Sardara Singh r/o Sham Nagar, Rajpura.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> The Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> <br /> ----------Opposite party.<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.Mohinder Singh, adv.<br /> For opposite party: Smt.Puja Puri, adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant,Jeet Kaur 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 Secretary, The Mall ,Patiala - The opposite party.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That the complainant is holder of electric connection No.GF 04/0904 with connected load being 1.52 KW and tariff NRS, which is served by Sub Divisional Officer, West, P.S.E.B., Rajpura.That the complainant has received from the opposite party a notice No.475/78 dated 7.2.2007 demanding therein a sum of Rs.10,589/- on account of theft of electricity, without mentioning how the theft of electricity was being committed and on which date the premises and by when were checked. It is all a concocted story to fleece the complainant. That the complainant does not remember the date of checking of the premises. But one day certain officials of the opposite party came for change of the electronics meter, which was done without any meter change order as on that date no signatures of the complainant or her representative were obtained. The meter so removed was also not packed in any box. It was taken away in open keeping on the carrier of the cycle. That the complainant has never been called in the M.E.Lab of the opposite party for the purpose of checking the meter so removed. Not only this no notice has ever been received I this regard. Without going through the formalities for establishing theft opposite party has humped to the conclusion of theft, as if predetermined. That the action of the opposite party is illegal and arbitrary to fleece the complainant. That the complainant is a consumer facts mentioned above constitute consumer dispute, payment of consumption bills is consideration, sending of the impugned notice is deficiency in service in terms of provisions of Section of the Act. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party who appeared ad field the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant has no locus standai to file the complaint. It is admitted that a provisional demand was raised against the complainant under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 vide notice dated 7.2.2007 by the concerned SDO of the P.S.E.B. on account of committing of theft of electricity energy/committing the malpractice and using the electricity supply unauthorized as fully described in the notice. The meter of the complainant w as changed vide meter change order dated 9.11.2006 as per report of the meter reader, the consumption as has been recorded b y the meter is on the lower side than the consumption which is being actually consumed by the consumer. The meter was sent to ME lab for thorough checking of the same. The consumer was informed about the date and checking of the meter in the ME lab. The meter was got checked in the M/E lab under the supervision of concerned AEE of ME lab and it was reported by the ME lab that the meter is dead. The provisional demand of Rs.10589/-was raised against the complainant as per detail mentioned in the notice dated 7.2.2007 for committing the theft of electricity energy. So it is a clear case of tampering of meter and thus suppressing the consumption of electricity by way of breaking the seals and opening the body and re-fixing the seals by foreign compound. This amount to unauthorized use of electricity amounting to theft of electricity energy under Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003, thus amount charges is absolutely legal. It is denied that meter change order was not prepared or the signatures of the complainant were not obtained. In fact, the meter was duly changed in the presence of representative of the consumer whose signatures are there on M.C.O..It is denied that the meter was taken in open in the ME lab or the same was not packed in card board box. In fact the meter was duly packed in the card board box and was taken to the ME lab in the same condition. The notice issued by the concerned office of the Board is absolutely legal and there is no illegality in any manner. The consumption data of the consumer was studied since 2003 and it was found that average bi-monthly consumption in the year 2003 was 230, in the year 2004 was 201, but there was sharp fall bi-monthly consumption in the year 2005and 2006 at 88 and 64 units respectively. The average bi-monthly consumption after the meter was changed has come out to be 105.It is denied that any action of the Board is illegal or arbitrary. It is denied that the notice has been issued to cause harassment and mental agony to the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer under the Act. The facts stated in the complaint are false. There is no deficiency in service. The complainant is not entitled to compensation or damages. The pleas that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint has also been taken. It is further pleaded that it is a case in which a notice under Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 has been issued to the complainant vide which the complainant was directed to deposit the provisional charges of committing the theft of electricity energy as fully described in the notice and the consumer was directed to file the reply to the said notice within seven days. However, the complainant has failed to file any reply to the said notice and the competent authority of the Board i.e. SDO West Sub Division,P.S.E.B,Rajpura was left with no other option except to pass the necessary orders after considering the evidence on the record i.e. the report given by the ME lab etc.The statutory remedy has been provided under the Electricity Act to challenge the demand as has been raised by the Board. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and has prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove her case the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit,Ex.C1, letter dated 7.2.2007,Ex.C2, copy of MCO, Ex.C3, copy of abstract of challan,Ex.C4 and letter dated 12.7.2007,Ex.C5.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of SDO Ashok Kumar,Ex.R1, copy of MCO, Ex.R2, copy of notice,Ex.R3 and copy of report of ME lab report,Ex.R4.<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. Sh.Mohinder Singh, adv. counsel for the complainant has argued that notice,Ex.C2, may be declared illegal and quashed on the ground of violation of rule of audi alteram partem inshrined 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 ME lab and therefore, the same should be declared illegal and quashed. In support of his arguments Sh.Mohinder Singh, 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 illegality of demand notice,Ex.C2, it will be useful to take cognizance of the instructions contained in Commercial Circular 8/99,the relevant extracts of which are <br /> reproduced below:-<br /> “As per existing instructions contained in para <br /> 2( c ) 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 P.S.E.B. Officers/ officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or 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 Organization 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 /> 9. At this stage notice may also be taken of Clause<br /> ( c ) of commercial circular No.45/98.The same reads as under:<br /> “( c ) In further( further?) 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 P.S.E.B. Officer/official and the consumer or his representative. The testing of meters shall be done in the presence 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/Divn. 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 ME Labs. Similar procedure shall be adopted in case of meter sealed by the Enforcement Agency/Operation Organisation in theft cases.”<br /> 10. A bare reading of the above re-produced provisions of the Commercial Circular shows that the testing of the meter removed against any meter change order 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 /> 11. 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 arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities of the Board and ordinarily the demand created in violation there of would be liable to be in validated .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 principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed on that ground alone.<br /> 12. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the 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:28.1.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />