DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.127/25.08.2008 Decided on : 21.1.2009 Sh.Mangat Ram S/o Sh.Bhan Chand resident of Ward No.17, Captain Roop Lal Street, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution, Sub Division, 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.P.K.Singla, 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.Mangat Ram, son of Bhan Chand, resident of Ward No.17, Captain Roop Lal Street, Mansa. against Punjab State Electricity Board, (in short called the 'board'), through its Assistant Executive Engineer at Mansa , under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: That domestic electric connection, bearing No.DG13/0121, has been installed, in the premises of the complainant, by the board. The complainant, has been continuously, paying the charges, for electricity consumed by him, through the bills drawn on him, as such, he is consumer, of electricity, under the opposite party. On 13.8.2008, the opposite party, Contd........2 : 2 : has served notice, upon the complainant, vide memo No.1828, making false allegations of theft of electric energy . The above said memo, is illegal and liable to be set aside, on the ground, that tampering of the seals of the electric meter, does not fall, within the purview of theft of electric energy, as alleged by the opposite party, in its memo, until it is checked by the M.E. Lab., but the opposite party, has not got checked the meter, removed from the premises, of the complainant, from the M.E. Lab., as such, the demand raised by them, from the complainant, to deposit the same, is pre-mature. The opposite party, has not supplied the copy, of the report of the M.E. Lab, to the complainant, as required under the rules, on the subject. It is submitted, that the complainant, has been subjected to mental and physical harassment, due to raising of illegal demand, by the opposite party, asking him to deposit the substantial amount, as such, he is entitled, to payment of compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, and costs incurred by him, for filing of the complaint and the impugned memo, raising demand of Rs.28,265/-, is liable to be set aside. On being put to notice, opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complainant is not a consumer, within the ambit of its definition given in the Act, that this Forum, has no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint, because, it is a case of theft of electric energy, committed by tampering with the M&T seals of electric meter, by the complainant; that the complainant, has no cause of action and locus standi, to file the complaint; that complaint, being false and vexatious, is liable, to be dismissed with compensatory costs; that complaint is bad, for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and is not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it is admitted that electric connection, has been installed, in the premises of the complainant, but it is contended that there is no requirement of checking of electric meter, by the M.E. Lab, if electric meter is sealed, packed and checked, in the presence of consumer and he has affixed his Contd........3 : 3 : signatures on checking report. It is submitted, that copy of the checking report, was delivered, to the complainant, at the time he affixed his signatures, on the report, as such, there is no deficiency, in service, for which they be directed, to waive off the amount of impugned memo and to pay costs and compensation, to the complainant. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the complainant, tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ext.C-1, copies of impugned notice Ext.C-2 and checking report Ext.C-3 before closing his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party has tendered the affidavits, of Sh.Ashok Kumar, S.D.O., Ext.R-I and Sh.Gurbax Singh, J.E., Ext.R-4 and copies of checking report Ext.R-2 and impugned notice Ext.R-3 before closure of his evidence. 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. There is no no dispute, that electric connection, under reference, has been installed, in the premises of the complainant and he has secured the same, from the opposite party, for domestic consumption of electric energy. The opposite party, has served notice upon the complainant, directing him, to make payment, of Rs.28,265/-, on the allegations, that he was caught committing theft of electricity, by tampering with the M&T Seals, as detected, at the time of surprise checking, conducted by the officials of the board. Learned counsel for the complainant, Sh.SK.Singla, Advocate, has submitted, that electric meter removed from the premises of the complainant, has not even got tested, from M.E. lab and copy of the report of the M.E. Lab, has not been supplied to him. Learned counsel has further contended that the manner in which seals of electric meter had been Contd........4 : 4 : tampered with is not disclosed in the impugned notice as such it is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and he is entitled to payment of amount on account of compensation and costs, as prayed for, in the complaint. In support of his contentions, learned counsel, has placed reliance upon 2007(II)CPJ 282 Gurcharan Singh versus Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr., wherein it has been held that by mere tempering of seals it cannot be concluded that there has been theft of electricity. Learned counsel, has also relied upon 2007(III) (NC) CPJ 410 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. versus Suresh Kumar wherein electric meter was found to be disturbed on account of which opposite party took the plea that complainant, has been indulging in theft of electric energy and imposed penalty upon him. It was held that checking report did not show in what manner seals were tampered with and notice served upon the complainant was quashed by the Hon'ble State Commission and opposite parties were directed to refund the amount to him with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum. In the Revision Petition, Hon'ble National Commission upheld the decision of the Hon'ble State Commission. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party, Sh. P.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant, has been removed, sealed and checked in his presence, by the checking staff and, he has appended his signatures, on the checking report without lodging protest as to its correctness that, both the M&T seals of his electric connection, were found tampered with, as such, it is a clear case of theft of electric energy, as such there was no requirement of testing of electric meter by the M.E. Lab and there is no deficiency, in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled, to seek compensation or costs, and no cause of action is made out, for setting aside the impugned notice served upon him. A careful perusal of the copy of the checking reports Ext.C-3 and R-2, produced on record by both the parties, reveals that checking of Contd........5 : 5 : the electric meter installed, in the premises of the complainant, has been done by the checking staff, in his presence and, he has affixed his signatures, in the column meant for 'Signatures of consumer's or his Representative' at the foot note. The checking report also contains remarks that both the M&T seals of the electric meter, installed in the premises of the complainant, were found tampered with. There is nothing on record to show that complainant raised protest against correctness of checking report Therefore, the allegations, made by the opposite party, are deemed to have been accepted by the complainant. As such, it is a case of theft of electricity, which does not require any formal proof. Therefore, we are of the opinion that notice served upon him cannot be set aside, even if, electric meter, after removal from the premises of the complainant, has not been got checked from the M.E. Lab, by the opposite party. As per rules, on the subject, copy of the checking report is required, to be supplied, by the checking staff, to the consumer or his representative, at the time of checking, but as per facts borne on record, the complainant has protested against non delivery of copy of checking report. Since the meter, has not been checked by the M.E.Lab, therefore, there was no occasion for supply of the report of M.E. Lab by the opposite party. After carefully perusing the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, we have come to the conclusion that their facts and circumstances, are quite distinguishable, from those of the case in hand. In 2007(II)CPJ 282 (Supra) evidence, has come on record showing that for the disputed period when alleged theft took place, average consumption of electric meter was much more than, when new meter was installed and demand was raised on account of Sundry charges because of which notice was quashed. In 2007(III) (NC) CPJ 410 (Supra) , it was held that electric meter installed in the premises of the consumer ought not to have showed any reading, if the same was found, to be sticky or defective, whereas, in the case in hand, pertains to commission of theft of Contd........6 : 6 : electricity by tampering with the M&T Seals of the electric meter and it is the case of neither of the parties, that electric meter installed in the house of the complainant, was sticky. As such, ratio of judgments delivered in the authorities, relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, referred above, does not advance his case. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left 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: 21.01.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
