DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.18/2.2.2009 Decided on : 05.05.2009 Smt. Krishna Garg wife of Sh. Om Parkash son of Sh. Nathu Ram, Ward No. 19, Tagore Street, 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. S.K.Bansal, 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. Smt. Krishna Garg wife of Sh. Om Parkash, 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 18.9..2008 and award of compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/- for physical and mental harassment and costs in the sum of Rs.1,000/- on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: 2. That Sh.Ram Parkash S/o Sh.Som Nath has got installed electric connection bearing Account No.TP21/101 from the opposite party for domestic purposes in the house in occupation of the complainant. The said owner sold his house alongwith the electric connection to the Contd........2 : 2 : complainant vide sale deed dated 15.5.2006, Since the date of purchase of the house, the complainant has been regularly making payment of amount of electricity bills, drawn upon her by the opposite party, and no amount is outstanding on account of electric charges towards her. As such, she is consumer of electric energy under him. The complainant has never tampered with the seals affixed on her electric meter, but vide letter No.2186 dated 18.09.2008, the opposite party has raised demand of Rs.22,721/-, which is illegal and is liable to be set aside. The tampering of the seals does not amount to commission of theft of electric energy and opposite party has not got the electric meter tested from the M.E. Lab and no meter reader of the board has ever reported such an act on her part. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party because of which complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant is not a consumer of electric energy qua the electric meter, as such she 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 her indulgence in theft of electric energy; that complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant has filed the instant complaint with malafide intention to harass the opposite party by concocting false version, as such, her complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On merits, the factum of installation of electric connection in the house in occupation of the complainant for domestic purposes is not denied, but it is denied for want of knowledge that she has purchased the said house from previous owner Sh.Ram Parkash S/o Sh.Som Nath, who is recorded consumer of electric energy, in the record of the board. It is also submitted that after provisional assessment, demand Contd........3 : 3 : of Rs.22,721/- has been made from the complainant, because official of the board, after opening the chamber of the meter in the presence of the husband of the complainant, found that M&T seals have been tampered with, to facilitate commission of theft of electric energy. It is submitted that electric meter was removed, packed and sealed in the presence of the husband of the complainant by the members of the checking team of the board and he affixed his signatures on the checking report after receiving copy thereof, admitting the contents to be correct. Rest of the averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs in the sum of Rs.5000/-. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered her affidavit, Exhibit C-1, copy of impugned notice Exhibit C-2 and copy of Sale deed Ext.C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence photocopy of notice Ext.OP-1 and photocopy of checking report Ext.OP-2 and closed evidence on their behalf. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. Sh.Sunil Bansal, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that complainant is not recorded consumer in the record maintained in the office of the opposite party, as electric connection has been issued in the name of Sh. Ram Parkash S/o Sh.Som Nath. Learned counsel argued that complainant has not filed any application for transfer of the electric connection and has not deposited the requisite fee thereof, as such, she has no locus standi to file the complaint especially when notice has been served upon the consumer and not upon her, as such, her complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 7. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. S.K.Singla, Advocate, has drawn our attention to copy of sale deed Contd........4 : 4 : showing purchase of house by the complainant from previous owner Sh. Ram Parkash and has argued that bills, issued by the opposite parties, are being paid regularly from the date of purchase of the house by the complainant for the electricity consumed by her, as such, she being beneficiary and user under the electric connection, has locus standi to file the complaint and is maintainable and cannot be dismissed on that count. 8. We find substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, because as per definition of the word 'consumer' given in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, a person who avails of any services for consideration including beneficiary of those services is a consumer. Although, electric connection is admittedly in the name of Sh.Ram Parkash, but as per copy of the sale deed dated 15.5.2006 Ext.C-3, produced on record by the complainant, she has purchased the house from previous owner alongwith electric connection in question. The opposite party, has not denied the fact that complainant is in occupation of the house where the said electric connection, has been installed and it is also not their case that the complainant is not depositing the amount of electricity bills for consumption of electric energy through the electric meter in question, even if they are not addressed in her name. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that complainant, being beneficiary and user is consumer of electricity under the opposite party and, has locus standi to file the complaint, and complaint filed by her in the Consumer Forum is maintainable. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party thus stands repelled. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that opposite party has not alleged that complainant has ever tampered with the M&T seals of her electric meter by stopping the same from running by use of any artificial means in an illegal manner. Learned counsel argued that merely because seals affixed on the electric meter was found tampered with by the officials of the board, it does not amount to tampering with the Contd........5 : 5 : electric meter. Learned counsel, has further argued that checking was neither done in the presence of the complainant nor copy of the checking report has been supplied to her and opposite party has not got the electric meter, removed from her premises, tested from the M.E. Lab and no meter reader of the board has ever reported any mischief on her part. Learned counsel further urged that there is non compliance of rules framed by the board on the subject and there being deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, impugned notice is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and complainant is entitled to seek compensation and costs from the opposite party, as demanded in the instant complaint. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel or the opposite party has argued that husband of the complainant has affixed his signatures admitting the contents of the report and after receiving the copy thereof, as such, there was no necessity of checking of electric meter from the M.E. Lab. Learned counsel further argued that husband of the complainant has not denied the above said facts , as such, production of affidavit of any officer of the board comprising the checking team is of no consequence and to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the part of the opposite party, as such, complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 11. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party, has failed to sound well with us. The plea of the opposite party is that they have served the impugned notice merely because seals affixed on the electric meter installed in the house in occupation of the complainant, were found tampered with by the officials of the board. In our opinion, mere tampering with the seals of the electric meter does not amount to commission of theft of electric energy , unless any overt act is proved to have done by the complainant for achieving the said object. In her affidavit Ext.C-1, the complainant has denied the factum of checking and commission of theft of electric energy by her and there is no evidence Contd........6 : 6 : that any meter reader of the board had ever reported any mischief on her part to facilitate the commission of theft of electric energy. The opposite party has also not claimed that meter, after its removal from the premises of the complainant, was got tested from the M.E. Lab. Therefore, factum of commission of theft cannot be presumed especially when the opposite party has not filed any affidavit of any officer or official of the board who was member of the checking team at the time of checking. The complainant has not admitted the signatures of her husband on the checking report Ext.OP-2. In the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite party, we are unable to accept the plea of their counsel that contents of checking report are deemed to have been admitted by the husband of the complainant on her behalf. As such, in our considered opinion, complainant cannot be burdened with huge amount demanded from her on the basis of impugned memo Ext.C-2, because theft of electric energy is a serious offence and may have serious consequences, if established. As such, onus was heavy on the opposite party to prove the said fact by leading positive evidence, which he has failed to discharge the same. As such, we are of the opinion that opposite party is deficient in rendering service to the complainant and notice served upon her by them raising demand of Rs.22,721, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Since the complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to service of illegal demand, therefore, she is also entitled to payment of adequate amount on account of costs and compensation. 12. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and we set aside the impugned notice, Ext.C-2, served vide Memo No.2186 dated 18.9.2008 raising demand of Rs.22,721/-, and burden the opposite party, in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation, and in the sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs . The compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Contd........7 : 7 : 13. The copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 05.05.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
