DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/153 of 2.3.2010 Decided on: 31.8.2010 Manjeet Kaur wife of Sucha Singh Karhari resident of village Shekhpura Tehsil and District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. The Punjab State Electricity Board, Head Office The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary. 2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board ,Bahadurgarh, Sub Division Bahadurgarh, District Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh. K.K.Jain, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh. P.S.Walia, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Manjeet Kaur has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That complainant is having electricity connection with electric account No.P-41UF011485H and meter No.27689 which is being used by complainant since long in her house but the opposite parties are illegally charging NRS tariff on the plea that the same is used for commercial activity as a small property dealers shop is opened in the house itself to earn livelihood by the complainant herself who sits on the said shop and for the purposes of earning her livelihood by means of self employment. The said meter is installed since long out side the house owned by complainant in street and complainant is using it for domestic purposes. The meter is duly sealed by Punjab State Electricity Board and it is installed in meter cover box which too is sealed from outside. There can be no tampering with the meter seals or meter in any manner. The sanctioned load of electricity of complainant is 3.52 KW and same is enough for the purposes of complainant. The connected load on the meter is even less than sanctioned load of 3.52 KW and it can be duly verified at the spot even today. The consumption of electricity by complainant is about 10 to 20 units for two months and said fact can be verified from past record of complainant and also from future consumption of complainant. That complainant has never made any theft of energy nor there is any unauthorized use of electricity and even there is no excess connected load than sanctioned one nor complainant used excess load than sanctioned one, but still bill dated 22.1.2010 has been claimed against electric account No.P-41UF011485H for alleged unauthorized use of electricity energy or alleged theft of energy as per alleged checking which was never made in the presence of complainant or her representative and said demand has been made by opposite party no.2 which is illegal, null and void and said amount is not payable by complainant. The complainant has never connected excess load than sanctioned one nor committed theft of energy nor made unauthorized use of electricity as alleged in the memo. No copy of alleged inspection report has been supplied to complainant or inspection was made in presence of complainant. The officers of opposite parties never visited house of complainant in her presence and connected load was never checked in her presence nor in the presence of any other family member. The employees of opposite parties did not get thumb marked or signed from any family member of complainant as required under the provisions of Sales Manual. The complainant has thus never committed any theft of energy. The complainant therefore, is not liable to pay any alleged amount as claimed in the bill.That impugned bill’s demand is illegal, null and void and the Punjab State Electricity Board is not entitled to recover the disputed amount from complainant. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is denied that the complainant is running the shop for self employment or she is the consumer under Act as amended. The present complaint is not maintainable as she is having NRS connection. That there is an electric account No.P-41UF011485H.The complainant is doing the business and has got employees for running her business. The facts are that the meter of the complainant was removed vide MCO No.180/75221 as the same was dead. All M.E. seals were found tampered at the time of removal as reported by J.E. who affected the M.C.O.The consumer was found liable to pay the amount as it was detected by the Audit party that the consumer has not been charged as per rules of the Board. Thus letter No.2084 dated 23.+9.2009 and letter No.2086 dated 23.9.2009 were issued. The complainant failed to pay the amount. That the complainant did not raise any objection when the demand was made vide letters No.2084 and 2086. The complainant is liable to pay the amount as detected by the Audit Party. The opposite parties have never alleged any kundi connection. It appeared that complainant is herself guilty conscious as he has been putting kundi to commit theft of energy from time to time and she was not caught. It is denied that demand made opposite party no.2 is illegal, null and void or the said amount is not payable by the consumer. The meter was duly removed and packed in a cardboard box in the presence of the complainant. Thus it was a clear case of theft of energy. The demand is legal and as per the rules of the Board. The consumer was issued notice u/s 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 vide memo No.2902 dated 7.12.2009 and he was also found liable to pay Rs.20000/- for compounding the offence as he had committed theft of energy which is a criminal offence. The consumer neither deposited the amount nor filed any objections. The Inspector Anti Power Theft Police Station,P.S.E.B.,Patiala was also asked to register F.I.R. vide letter No.2904 dated 9.12.2009. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The opposite parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The case of opposite parties is that the meter of the complainant was removed vide MCO No.180/75221,Ex.R2 as the same was dead. It is also the case of opposite parties that all ME seals were found tampered at the time of removal as per report of JE who affected the MCO..The amount in dispute was detected by the audit party as the complainant was not earlier charged as per rules of the Board. The amount has been charged as per rules and they have never alleged of any theft by putting kundi as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has been charged as per rules and regulations of the Board. 7. Admittedly in this case the demand has been made by the opposite parties on the basis of objections raised by the audit party. The opposite parties have placed on record the documents containing estimate of the additional demand made,Exs.R4.It is clear from the material placed on record that the opposite parties have not cared to follow the relevant instructions contained in para No.s2&3 of the Sales Circular No.27/96 which reads as under:- “ It is regular feature in the Electricity Board that Audit Parties audit the consumer’s account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party. It is understood that whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party, the SDO concerned is required to check the report but in practice the penalty is imposed without any cross checking by the SDO concerned.Before imposing penalty etc., notice is required to be given to consumer to explain his position. “The requirement of law is that proper prescribed procedure is to be followed and before imposing penalty on the consumer notice is required to be issued to the consumer. It should be ensured that seven days are given to the consumer before imposing penalty in such cases”. The above instructions leave no manner of doubt that the opposite parties were duty bound to supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the above stated requirement which the opposite parties have not complied with in this case. 8. The present demand made had been raised in the bill,Ex.C3 dated 22.1.2010 as sundry charges along with energy consumption charges payable on 8.2.2010.The opposite parties while issuing the demand on the basis of audit report had totally ignored the above stated provisions. The bill further shows that an amount of Rs.69443/- as sundry charges has been added in the bill. The perusal of the bill, Ex.C3 does not show as to of which period this amount pertains to. No details of this amount have been mentioned by the opposite parties. The case of opposite parties is that it was pointed out during the internal audit by the auditor. However, in the present case it is clear from the material placed on record that the opposite parties have not cared to follow the relevant instructions contained in para Nos.2&3 of the Sales Circular No.27/96.The above instructions leave no manner of doubt that the opposite parties were duty bound to supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the above stated requirement which the opposite parties have not complied with in this case. The requirement of law is that proper prescribed procedure is to be followed and before imposing penalty on the consumer notice is required to be issued to the consumer. It should be ensured that seven days are given to the complainant before imposing penalty in such cases. Before imposing penalty etc. notice is required to be given to the consumer to explain his position. The opposite parties while issuing the demand on the basis of audit report have totally ignored the above stated provisions. The demand of Rs.69443/- as sundry charges made in the bill, Ex.C3 dated 22.1.2010 payable upto 8.2.2010 issued to the complainant on the face of record is illegal and unjustified. On this point we are supported by the authority Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Verus Rajji Bai 2009(1) CLT 526. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions we are clearly of the view that the opposite parties have failed to establish their case. We are also the clear view that the opposite parties have unnecessarily drawn the complainant into prolonged litigation. 10. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.2000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:31.8.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
