DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No. 49/10.3.2009 Decided on : 18.6.2009. Sh. Kaur Sain son of Sh. Bir Chand, resident of Piara Lal Thakedar Wali Gali, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Chairman. 2. Sub Divisional Officer(C), Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. P.K. Singla, Advocate counsel for Opposite Parties. Quorum: Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh. Sarat Chander, Member. Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. 1. This complaint, has been filed, by Sh. Kaur Sain son of Sh. Bir Chand, resident of Piara Lal Thakedar Wali Gali, Mansa, 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 Chairman and SDO(City), Mansa, for setting aside impugned notice, raising demand of Rs. 66,041/-, served through Memo dated 21.1.2009, issued by his office and for giving him a direction, for payment of compensation, in the sum of, Rs. 20,000/- and litigation charges. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant, is as under:- 2. That he has secured, electric connection, bearing Account No. TV21/056, in his house, for consumption of electric energy, from the opposite parties. Since the date of installation, of electric connection, in his Contd....2... : 2 : house, the complainant, has been making payment, of electricity bills, drawn upon him, by the opposite parties, as such he is 'Consumer' under the opposite parties. The electric meter has been installed, by the opposite parties, in the street at the outside of house, of the complainant, who has neither tempered with its seals nor ever opened its body. The meter readers of the board, visit the premises of the complainant, every month but none of them has reported any mischief, on his part, to enable him, to commit theft of electric energy. At the time, the electric meter was removed, by the officials of the opposite parties, from the premises of the complainant, seals thereof were intact, though the members of the checking team, secured the signatures of Mukesh Mittal, grandson of the complainant, in his absence stating, that his signatures, have been secured, because complainant, is not present. The meter was not packed and sealed by the members of the checking team but they have served notice, vide office Memo dated 21.1.2009, raising demand of Rs. 66,041/-, because some of the officials, of the board, had been bearing grudge against him. The mere tempering of the seals, does not amount to, commission of theft of electric energy. As such he is not bound, to pay the amount demanded, through demand notice and the opposite parties, are not entitled to, recover the said amount from him. The complainant approached the opposite parties to in their office and pleaded before them, that demand is illegal, as such impugned memo be filed, but they refused to oblige. As such, there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, because of which the complainant, has been subjected to mental and physical harassment, who has to incur unavoidable expenses, for filing of the complaint. Hence the complaint. 3. On being put to notice, the opposite parties filed, written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, has no locus standi and cause of action, to file the complaint; that the complaint, is not maintainable and is bad for non joinder of necessary parties; that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try this complaint, because the case pertains to commission of Contd...3... : 3 : theft of electric energy and the complainant, has remedy, to approach the electrical inspector, but he has failed to invoke the same, as permissible under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, as such complaint is liable, to be dismissed. On merits factum of issuance of electric connection, in the name of the complainant and installation thereof, in his house is admitted, but it is submitted, that on 19.1.2009, Sh. R.K. Goel, Senior Executive Engineer(Enforcement), Bathinda and Sh. Narinder Kumar, J.E., checked the meter installed, in the premises of the complainant and found, that after opening of the body of the meter, its ME seals have been tempered with. It is also submitted, that electric meter was removed and packed, in the presence of representative of the complainant, named above and after preparation of report, his signatures were secured and copy of checking report was supplied, to the representative of the complainant, who affixed his signatures, admitting the contents thereof and demand has been raised, after provisional assessment, under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. As such there is no deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, which may call indulgence of this Forum as sought, through the instant complaint. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, have been denied and a prayer has been made, for dismissal, of the complaint, with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant furnished his affidavit and copies of documents Ext. C-1 to C-6 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties, tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh. R.K. Goel, Executive Engineer Enforcement, affidavit of Sh. Narinder Kumar, J.E and copies of documents, Ext. OP-1 to OP-5 and closed their 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. At the out set, learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate has submitted, that meter has been installed, by the Contd.....4.... : 4 : opposite parties, outside the house of the complainant and no meter reader of the board has never made any report against the complainant. Learned counsel has further argued, that house of the complainant, is lying locked, since January, 2002 and status of the meter, in copies of bills, tendered by him, has been recorded as O.K. Learned counsel has argued, that checking has not been done, in the presence of the complainant and report of M.E. Lab., has not been secured, by the opposite parties, after checking of electric meter. Learned counsel has vehemently argued, that false case has been planted, against the complainant, at the instance of the officials of the board, who were inimical, with the complainant and has been, bearing grudge against him. Learned counsel has argued, that for the reasons stated above, raising of illegal demand, through the impugned notice, by the opposite parties, is abuse of process of his powers, as such, impugned notice, is liable to be set aside and the complainant is entitled to, seek compensation and costs as demanded, in the complaint. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties, Sh. P.K. Singla, Advocate has submitted, that complainant has admitted, in the complaint, signatures of his grandson on the checking report and removal of electric meter, from his premises and it is not his case, that some miscreant has tempered with, seals of the meter, whereas the case of the complainant, is controverted, by duly sworn affidavits of the members of the checking team. Learned counsel has further submitted, that complainant has failed, to disclose, the names of the officials, of the board, who had been bearing grudge, against him and cause thereof and his grandson had admitted the contents of the checking report, after receiving the copy from the members of the checking team, of the board. As such, demand raised, through the impugned notice, is perfectly legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service, which may invite indulgence of this Forum, as sought through the instant complaint. Learned counsel has urged, that complaint being false and vexatious, deserves to be dismissed, with costs. 8. The argument advanced, by the learned counsel for the Contd....5.... : 5 : complainant, is impressive because the complainant has admitted, in complaint itself, that signatures on the checking report of his grandson Mukesh Mittal, has been secured, at the time of checking, in his absence. It is well settled, that admitted facts needs no formal proof and admission is best evidence of a fact, if not successfully withdraw or proved, to be erroneous. As per plea of the complainant, signatures of his grandson, were secured, by the officials of the board, on the checking report, on the pretext, that the same are needed, for recording the correctness thereof. The complainant has also submitted, in the complaint, that electric meter was removed, from outside of his premises and has taken plea, that it was found correct, at that time. The complainant has not tendered in evidence affidavit of his grandson, although he was the best witness, to inform this Forum as to what transferred between him and members of the checking team of the board. The explanation given by the complainant, otherwise does not sound well, to the logic. The factum of checking and affixation of signatures by the grandson, of the complainant, on the checking report, prepared at the spot, with free consent, admitting the contents thereof, to be correct is proved, by the affidavits of members of the checking team Ext. OP-4 & OP-5. The complainant has not disclosed, the name of the any official, of the board, either in the complaint or in his affidavit Ext. C-1, who were inimical to him. He has also not disclosed, the cause of enmity between him and other officials. He has also not taken any plea, in the complaint, that his house, has been lying vacant, since January, 2002. As per settled proposition of law, parties cannot be permitted, to build up fresh case, at the time of arguments, by travelling beyond the scope of pleadings. Moreover, he has tendered in evidence, copies of bills, dated 25.12.2008, 25.2.2009 and 28.4.2009, Ext. C-2 to C-4 showing, that amount of Rs. 700/-, Rs. 710 and Rs. 720/-, has been demanded, from him by the opposite parties on account of consumption of electric charges. Had the house of the complainant, was lying locked, then the meter installed therein was not expected to, show any consumption of electric energy. As mentioned, in the Contd...6... : 6 : copy of checking report, Ext. OP-1, sanctioned load of the complainant, was 9.66KW and he was found drawing electric energy, at the time of inspection to the extent of sanctioned load. As discussed above, amount of electric charges mentioned, in the electricity bills, tendered in evidence by him, is much lower then the sanctioned load of electric meter. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the complaint, discussed above cannot be altogether ignored by us, even if the electric meter, removed, from the premises of the complainant, has not been got checked, by the opposite parties, in ME Lab in his presence. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the conclusion, that there is no deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties and no ground is made out, for setting aside, impugned memo or for award of compensation and costs as prayed for, in the complaint. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint and leave the parties, to bear their own costs. 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: 18.06.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S. Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
