DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.24/03.02.2009 Decided on : 06.05.2009 Sh. Kahan Chand S/o Sh. Sohan Lal, Ramji Pradan Street, Ward No. 15, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS The S.D.O.(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. Gurnish Manshahia, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh. Kahan Chand son of Sh. Sohan Lal, a resident of Mansa, has filed this complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') against the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter called as the board), through its SDO( City), Mansa for setting aside impugned Memo dated 29.1.2009 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: That he has got installed electric connection bearing Account No.SR-18/543 from the opposite party for domestic purposes in his house and the complainant has been regularly making payment of amount of electricity bills, drawn upon him by the opposite party, and no amount is Contd........2 : 2 : outstanding on account of electric connection towards him, as such, he is consumer of electric energy under him, who had served notice vide office Memo No.293 dated 29.1.2009 raising demand of Rs.10,562/-. The said notice is illegal and not binding upon the complainant because he has never tampered with the seals of the electric meter which has not been got checked from the M.E. Lab and meter reader of the board has never reported any such mischief on the part of the complainant. The opposite party has removed the electric meter from the house of the complainant in routine and bills are correctly drawn upon him on average basis, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and impugned memo is liable to be set aside. The complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to the service of illegal notice upon him. Hence this complaint. On being put to notice, opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint; that 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 filed the instant complaint with malafide intention to harass the opposite party by concocting false version, as such, his complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On merits, the factum of installation of electric connection in the house of the complainant for domestic purposes is not denied. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.10,562/- is liable to be paid by him as demanded through impugned Memo by the opposite party after provisional assessment. On 24.1.2009, the officials of the board conducted checking of the premises of the complainant and found body of electric meter installed therein open and seals thereof tampered with. It is contended that checking report was prepared by the checking team at the spot and copy thereof was supplied to him and he affixed his signatures thereon admitting the contents, as Contd........3 : 3 : such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and impugned notice cannot be set aside even if report of M.E. Lab. has not been secured. 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 and copy of impugned notice Exhibit C-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence photocopy of notice Ext.OP-1 , photocopy of checking report Ext.OP-2 and affidavit of Sh.R.K.Goyal, XEN, Ext.OP-3 and closed evidence on their behalf. 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. At the out set, Learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. S.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that there is no other allegation except that he has tampered with the seals of the electric meter and there is no allegation that electric meter was not running or was slowed down due to tampering. Learned counsel argued that the opposite party has removed the electric meter from the premises, therefore, it was incumbent upon them to get it tested from the M.E. Lab, but no such action has been taken, as such, notice served upon the complainant is pre mature and is not sustainable. Learned counsel urged that complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to the service of illegal notice upon him, as such, he is entitled to payment of compensation and costs. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that complainant has taken the plea that meter installed in his premises has been removed as a routine by the officials of the opposite party and bills are being drawn by him on average basis and he has not denied signatures on the checking report, which he has affixed admitting the contents thereof after receiving copy without lodging protest. Learned Contd........4 : 4 : counsel argued that due to the above said admitted facts, impugned notice served after provisional assessment as per rules cannot be said to be illegal, even if electric meter removed from his premises has not been checked from the M.E.Lab. Learned counsel argued that complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. Admittedly, electric connection bearing Account No. SR-18 /543 has been secured by the complainant, for domestic purposes from the opposite party and he has been regularly making payment of electricity bills drawn upon him by the opposite party before service of impugned notice, as such, he is consumer of electric energy under them qua the said electric connection installed in his house. As per version projected by the complainant in the complaint, the meter installed in his premises was removed by the officials of the board in routine and thereafter bills are being drawn upon him on average basis. He has not disclosed the purpose for which meter was removed by the officials of the board from his premises. He was not expected to permit the officials of the board to remove the electric meter until he reported defect therein or it had been burnt and required replacement. As per his own version, he is making payment of subsequent bills on average basis. He has neither produced on record nor relied upon any application which he might have moved to the opposite party or any higher authority for restoration of his electric meter. The copy of checking report Ext.OP-2 bears his signatures. In his affidavit Ext.C-1, he has not denied his signatures on the checking report. There is nothing on record suggesting that he lodged protest against the remarks given in the checking report after receipt of copy thereof, which has been prepared at the spot. The factum of supply of copy of checking report to the complainant and that he appended his signatures on the said document after admitting the contents thereof are corroborated by the affidavit of Sh.R.K.Goyal, XEN (Enforcement), Ext.OP-3. Since the complainant has Contd........5 : 5 : not denied the existence of signatures on the checking report, therefore, contents thereof are deemed to have been admitted by him. It is mentioned in the checking report that at the time of checking of electric meter, seals were found tampered with. The mere tampering of the seals may not amount to commission of theft of electric energy, but it is also mentioned that body of the meter of the complainant was found open. This fact coupled with the allegations of tampering cannot substantiate the case of the opposite party that complainant had been indulging in commission of theft of electric energy. Therefore, in our opinion, the plea of the learned counsel for the complainant that it is a mere case of tampering of seals, is misconceived. The checking report also contains a report written by the checking officer that actual load of electricity drawn by the complainant was found within the limits of sanctioned load. The complainant has not alleged any previous hostile animus towards the officials of the board comprising the checking team and it is not his case that they have made false allegation and forged checking report after securing his signatures due to some extraneous reasons or at the instance of some other person enimical to him. The notice Ext.C-1 has been served upon the complainant through Smt.Kamlesh Rani on 30.1.2009 and he has been directed to appear for personal hearing within a period of 7 days and to file objection, if any. As such, complainant cannot be said to have been condemned unheard. The final assessment has not been made so far by the assessing authority. Since the notice has been served as per factual position existing at the spot and complainant has not availed opportunity of being heard afforded by the opposite party to him before final assessment, as such, we are of opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, which may invite indulgence of this Forum , setting aside impugned Memo raising demand of Rs.10,562/- and for payment of compensation and costs. Resultantly, we dismiss the complaint leaving the parties to Contd........6 : 6 : bear their own costs. 12. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 06.05.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
