DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.135/05.09.2008 Decided on : 11.02.2009 Sh.Kulwant Rai S/o Sh.Arjan Dass, S/o Sh.Pat Ram resident of Shiv Trivani Mandir Street, Ward No.10, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties . Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.K. Singla, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.H.S.Sadhuwala, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President: This complaint has been filed, by Sh. Kulwant Rai son of Sh. Arjan Dass, resident of Shiv Trivani Mandir Street, Mansa, against Punjab State Electricity Board, (in short called the 'board') through its Sub Divisional Officer, Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), on the averments, which may briefly be described as under: 2. That the complainant, has secured an Electric connection bearing Account No. B45DH180225 from the opposite party in his house. He is regularly making the payment of amount of electricity bills drawn upon him, as such, he is consumer, under the opposite parties, qua the said electric connection. The opposite party raised a demand of Contd.......2 : 2 : Rs.11,470/-, including a sum of Rs.10,800/- on account of theft of electricity from the complainant vide electricity bill No.101 dated 20.8.2008, on the allegations that he has been committing theft of electricity. The opposite party, has neither served any notice upon the complainant, nor checking of the electric meter installed in his premises, has been done in his presence and the allegations made about the theft of electricity, are concocted and based on falsehood. The complainant, has been subjected to mental and physical harassment, as such, the opposite party is liable to waive off the amount of Rs.10,800/-, demanded from him, on account of theft of electricity, who are further liable for payment of compensation, in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, and costs in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, incurred by him in filing of the instant complaint. 2. On being put to notice, Opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, is not the 'consumer' within the purview of its definition given in the Act, as such, complaint, is not maintainable; that this Forum has no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint, because it is the case of theft of electricity. On merits, it is submitted that electric connection bearing Account No. B45DH180225, has been issued, in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar son of Sh. Kaur Sain and not in the name of the complainant. However, it is admitted that electricity bills have been drawn upon the complainant asking him to deposit a sum of Rs.10,800/-, on account of theft of electricity, but it is contended that on 29.11.2006, electric connection, under reference, was checked by the officials of the board, in the presence of Lucky S/o Ramesh Bansal and Usha Rani widow of Sita Ram and it was found, that complainant has tempered with M.E. Seals of his electric meter, which was removed and sealed by the members of the checking team. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. Contd.......3 : 3 : 3. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the complainant, tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ext.C-2 and copies of documents Ext.C-1 and C-3 and closed their evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party furnished affidavit Ext.OP-3 of Sh.Gurjit Singh, Lineman of the board and copies of checking report and notice served upon the complainant Ext.OP-1 and OP-2, before he closed their evidence. 4. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. 5. To begin with, Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate, Learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that checking of the electric meter installed in the house of the complainant, was never done in his presence or in the presence of his representative and the opposite party, has neither served any notice upon him, nor copy of the checking report, has been supplied. Learned counsel, has submitted that complainant, has not been given opportunity of being heard before raising demand on account of theft of electric energy and manner in which theft was committed has not been disclosed. Learned counsel, has further contended that the opposite party, has not disclosed the criteria adopted for calculation of the amount of theft and no report of the M.E. Lab, has been secured, although, electric meter, has been removed and packed by the officials of the board, as submitted in the checking report, produced on record by the opposite party. Learned Counsel argued, that since the demand raised by the opposite party, is illegal and against the rules framed by the board, on the subject, as such, either direction be given to them to withdraw the impugned bill and issue the same on the basis of actual consumption, or to set aside the same. Learned counsel argued that complainant is also entitled to claim compensation for physical and mental harassment and costs incurred by him for filing the complaint. Contd.......4 : 4 : 6. On the other hand, Sh. H.S.Sadhuwala, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party, has submitted, at the out set, that electric meter is installed in the house in occupation of the complainant in predecessor in interest. He has not made any attempt to get it transferred in his name, as such, he is not recorded consumer of the electric energy in the record of the board and complaint filed by him is liable to fail on that score. 7. At the stage, learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to copy of registered Sale Deed dated 25.8.1980 Ext.C-3 executed in his favour by Ashok Kumar and Kaur Sain. Learned counsel has argued that, even if, the electric connection, has not been transferred in the name of the complainant, he is beneficiary of electric connection and opposite party, has served notice upon him, as such, he is 'consumer' within the purview of its definition given in the Act, and has locus standi to file the complaint. 8. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant because electric connection, has been installed in the name of Ashok Kumar son of Sh.Kaur Sain., but as per the copy of sale deed dated 25.8.1980 Ext.C-3, the complainant, has purchased the house, in which electric connection in question, has been installed, from Kaur Sain father of the original consumer. The opposite party, has not disputed the fact that complainant is in occupation of the house where the electric connection is installed. They have also demanded the amount on account of theft of electric energy, vide impugned bill from him. As per Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act, word 'consumer' includes beneficiary of services other than the person who avails them for consideration. As per our opinion, the complainant has locus standi to file the complaint and his complaint is maintainable. In this regard, reference be made to 2006(2) CPC 137 Sat Pal versus P.S.E.B. through its Secretary and others, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission, Contd.......5 : 5 : Punjab that it is settled that a person who is staying in a house as actual user of electricity is a consumer, being a beneficiary, as per provisions contained in Sub Section 2(1)(d)(i). In the present case, the connection was in the name of the father of the complainant. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party, has further submitted that complainant, has not alleged any enmity towards the members of the checking team, as such, they had no reason to plant case of commission of theft of electric energy upon him without any reason or rhyme. Learned counsel, has argued that checking has been done in the presence of two representatives of the complainant, but after they refused to affix their signatures, the copy of the checking report was affixed on the premises of the complainant and this fact, has been specifically mentioned in the checking report. Learned counsel, has argued that tempering of the seals was visible to the naked eye, therefore, no report of the M.E. Lab. was needed to establish the factum of theft of electricity. Learned counsel further argued that the opposite party, has served notice upon the complainant before raising the demand on account of theft of electricity, but he has failed to appear and avail opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, as such, his complaint is liable to be dismissed. 10. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party, has failed to sound well with us. As submitted in the checking report Ext.OP-1, checking has not been done in the presence of the complainant or his representative. The opposite party has not disclosed the relationship of the persons present at the time of checking with the complainant. There is no documentary proof to establish the plea of the opposite party that copy of the checking report was affixed on the premises of the complainant after his representatives Lucky and Usha Rani refused to affix their signatures, except a remark given on the checking report. Even Gurjit Singh, Line Man examined by the opposite party in his Contd.......6 : 6 : affidavit Ext.OP-3, has not claimed that copy of the checking report was affixed, on the premises of the complainant, after his above named representatives refused, to receive the same. As per Clause 3(e) of the Circular No.53/2006, issued by the board on the subject, in case the consumer or his representative present at the site, refuses to accept the copy of the inspection report, it must be pasted at a conspicuous place in or outside its premises and simultaneously it shall be sent to the consumer under registered post. There is no documentary proof showing that copy of the checking report was pasted in or outside the premises of the complainant or was sent to him subsequently through registered post or by any other mode. The checking report Ext.OP-1, has not been signed by the Assessing Officer and details of the evidence gathered by the members of the checking staff, has not been mentioned therein as envisaged in Clause 3(d) of the above said circular issued by the board on the subject. As per note given in the checking report Ext.OP-1, even connected load, at the time of checking in the premises of the complainant, has not been checked by the members of the checking staff and no calculation sheet, has been produced on record, to justify the manner in which the amount demanded from the complainant, has been calculated. The opposite party, has produced on record copy of the notice dated 8.12.2006 Ext.OP-2 directing the complainant to deposit the sum of Rs.10800/-, on account of theft of electric energy, within a period of 7 days and to file reply within the stipulated period and to avail the opportunity of being heard. However, the opposite party, has not produced on record any proof of delivery of the said notice to the complainant. The demand on account of theft of electric energy, has been raised on the basis of the impugned electricity bill and service of notice Ext.OP-2 upon the complainant is not proved by any documentary evidence. As per principles of natural justice, a person cannot be condemned unheard. As per the case of the opposite party, complainant, has tempered with ME seals of electric meter installed in his Contd.......7 : 7 : premises, which was visible to naked eye, as per the stand taken by the opposite party. However, in the checking report Ext.OP-1, it has been mentioned that meter, has been removed by the members of the checking staff and packed at the spot. Therefore, the electric meter should have been got checked from the M.E.lab, but no such action, has been taken by the officials of the board, for the reasons best known to them. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that there is 'deficiency in service' on the part of the opposite party in raising the demand of Rs.10,800/- on account of theft of electricity through the impugned bill Ext.C-1 served upon the complainant, because of which he has suffered mental and physical harassment. He has also to incur unavoidable expenses for filing of the complaint due to illegal demand raised by the opposite party. 12. For what has been discussed above by us, we accept the complaint and set aside the impugned bill Ext.C-1 and notice Ext.OP-2 raising demand of Rs.10,800/-, from the complainant, on account of theft of electric energy. We further direct the opposite party, to issue fresh bill to the complainant, on the basis of actual consumption of electric energy, if they so desire and to pay him a sum of Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.1,000/-, on account of costs for filing of the instant complaint. The compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The amount deposited by the complainant in terms of interim order, if any, be adjusted in future bills to be drawn upon him. 13. 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: 11.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
