DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.93 of 7.3.2007<br /> Decided on: 5.2.2008<br /> <br /> Mr.Dinesh Asija and Mr.Munish Nehra,F-6,Ist Floor, Caliber Market, Rajpura.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> <br /> ----------Opposite party.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur,Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.Mohinder Singh,adv.<br /> For opposite party: Smt.Neena Kaushal,adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainants, Dinesh Asija and Munish Nehra have 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 party fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That the complainants have taken on lease a shop from Smt.Vinod Bala alongwith facility of electric connection No.IF 28/0180 for running a computer center for earning their livelihood by keeping themselves engaged as a self employed persons. They are helped in this regard by their family members. They have not engaged any employee. They have engaged only one peon and a sweeper , of course load is 1044K.W. NRS.That about two years ago complainants lodged a complaint with the Sub Division East Office of the opposite party at Rajpura on account of some fault in the light. On this some officials of the opposite parties visited the premises, but during the course of location of the fault, they got the meter burnt. In this way the meter was burnt by the opposite party themselves. Another meter was installed in this place. That complainants have received demand notice dated 26.2.2007 from Rajpura,East Division of the opposite party for deposit of Rs.1,02,591/- within seven days, failing which the connection will be snapped. This notice has been received through registered post on 2.3.2007.It has been received through Vinod Bala.That before this no notice of any kind on this point has been received. It has been stated in the impugned notice that as per M.E.Lab.report the meter runs slow and all M.E.seals have been tampered and refixed.This amount as per them is compensation for the above faults imputed to the complainants. That the complainants have never been called in the M.E.Lab.for the purpose of checking the meter in their presence. When the meter was taken it was not placed in any box and sealed.It was taken in the open. No M.E.Lab. report has ever been supplied to the complainants. All the above allegations are false and a concocted story to fleece the money from the complainants. Moreover, the impugned notice has been very late and a case of running of slow meter is to be detected by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab under Section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act,1910.Under the Electricity Act,2003 show cause notice is required to be sent by the opposite party. Opposite party cannot reach on the conclusion which has been mentioned in the notice. It is all illegal. That the complainants are the beneficiaries of the electric connection, facts stated above are consumer dispute, payment of bills is consideration, sending the impugned notice is deficiency in service in terms of provisions of Section 2 of the Act. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is denied that the complainants are running a computer centre for earning livelihood as a self employed persons. The computer centre is big commercial unit and the complainants are earning a lot of money through their commercial unit. That on 27.4.2004 during a routine checking,JE Sh.P.K.Sehgal alongwith his checking staff checked the meter bearing electricity connection No.IF-28/180 of the consumer Smt.Vinod Bala sanctioned load 7.10 category NRS in the presence of the consumer and it was found that the meter terminal block has burnt as per the report 18/180 of JE. The old meter was replaced with new electric meter vide MCO No.198/50702 dated 4.5.2004 and the old meter was sent in ME lab. Vide challan No.12 dated 16.5.2005 by Ashwani Kumar,JE,East Rajpura after following the proper procedure for the purpose of sending disputed meter in ME lab. Before sending the notice, two notices/calling letter were given to the consumer on 3.3.2005 and 3.5.2005 and also received by the consumer under the signature. The notice is legal and valid. The report is also legal and valid. The consumer of the disputed connection called in the M.E.lab. through notice/calling letter dated 3.3.2005 for the purpose of the checking of the meter in her presence before the ME lab on 7.3.2005 but the consumer did not come to the ME lab on 7.3.2005.The report is mentioned on challan No.23 dated 7.3.2005 in the presence of Er.J.S.Sodhi.Again another notice/calling letter was given to the consumer for appearing before the M.E.Lab. on 9.5.2005 for the purpose of the checking the disputed meter through notice dated 3.5.2005 but no body was come to ME lab on fixed date and report is also mentioned on challan No.91 dated 9.3.2005 in the presence of JE Ashwani Kumar. After that the meter was checked vide challan No.12 on 17.6.2006 by Addl.SE Enforceent,Patiala,Sh.G.S.Kang,(2)AEE,ME Lab.Patiala,Mr.Bhattal,(3) JE T and P ME,Patiala,Bhajan Singh,(4) JE ‘OP’Ashwani Kumar and (5) JE ME checking,Pritpal Singh and it was found that the meter runs slow and all ME seals have tempered and refixed and also changed the counter of the meter, as the ME lab report. So in view of ME lab. report, this amount is charged as compensation to the above fault as per commercial circular No.18/2002.The complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service in terms of provision of Section 2 of the Act. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied. The pleas that complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum; that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party and that disputed connection is commercial have also been taken and has prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C1 and notice dated 26.2.2007,Ex.C2.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.R1 of Jasbir Singh,SDO, affidavit ,Ex.R2 of P.K.Sehgal, JE, affidavit,Ex.R3 of J.S.Sodhi,JE,affidavit,Ex.R4 of Ashwani Kumar,JE, affidavit,Ex.R5 of Pritpal Singh,JE,affidavit,Ex.R6 of G.S.Kang,Addl.S.E.Enforcement,affidavit,Ex.R7 of Er.R.S.Bhattal, copy of checking report dated 4.5.2004,Ex.R8, copy of challan no.23,Ex.R9, copy of challan No.9,Ex.R20, copy of challan No.12 dated 16.5.2005,Ex.R11 and the disputed meter,Ex.R12.<br /> 6. The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that some time back the complainants lodged a complaint with the Sub Division East Office of the opposite party at Rajpura on account of some fault in the line. During the course of checking the fault by the officials of the opposite party meter was burnt which was take by them and a new meter was installed. On 26.2.2007 the complainants received a demand notice from the opposite party for deposit of Rs.1,02,591/-.In the demand notice it has been said that the meter runs slow and all seals have tempered with and refixed as observed by their M.E.Lab.He has further contended that when the old meter was taken away it was not packed in any box and sealed, it was taken in open and has further contended that it is not a case of theft of energy and that impugned demand be quashed.<br /> 8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that on 27.4.2004 during a routine checking JE.P.K.Sehgal, alongwith his checking staff checked the meter of the consumer in the presence of the consumer and it was found that the meter terminal block had burnt. The old meter was replaced with new electric meter vide MCO dated 4.5.2004 ,ex.R8 and the old meter was sent to M.E.Laboratory vide challan No.12 dated 16.5.2005,Ex.R11 by Ashok Kumar ,JE.She has further contended that before sending the notice two notices/calling letters were given to the consumer on 3.3.2005 and 3.5.2005 and were received by the consumer under her signatures. The notice is legal and valid. The report is also legal and valid. She has further contended that the consumer of the disputed connection had been called in the ME laboratory through notice dated 3.3.2005 for the purpose of the checking of the meter in her presence before the M.E.Lab on 7.3.2005 ,but the consumer did not come. She has further contended that again another notice was given to the consumer for appearing before the M.E.Lab. on 9.5.2005 for the purpose of checking the disputed meter through notice dated 3.5.2005,bot nobody came to M.E.Lab on the fixed date. Thereafter the meter was checked vide challan No.12 on 17.6.2006 by Addl.S.E.Enforcement ,Patiala Sh.G.S.Kang,AEE,M.E.Lab,Patiala,Mr.Bhattal,JE.T&PM.E.,Patiala, Bhajan Singh,J.E.(OP)Ashwani Kumar ,J.E. M.E.Checking,Pritpal Singh and it was found that the meter runs slow and all ME seals were tampered and refixed and also changed the counter of the meter. She has further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 10. The case of the opposite parties is that the old meter was replaced with new electric meter vide MCO dated 4.5.2004,Ex.R8 and the old meter was sent in M.E.laboratory.It is also the case of the opposite parties that two notices dated 3.3.2005 and 3.5.2005 were given to the consumers for the appearance in the M.E.Laboratory at the time of checking the disputed meter. It is also the case of the opposite party that the consumer did not attend the M.E.Laboratory at the time of checking in spite of the notices. Whereas according to the complainant the meter in dispute was never sealed in a card board box nor any notices as alleged were given to the consumers for appearing in the M.E.Lab.at the time of alleged checking of the meter.<br /> 11. The perusal of the MCO ,Ex.R8, shows that the meter in dispute which was removed was never sealed in a card board box. The case of the opposite party is that notices dated 3.3.2005 and 3.5.2005 were given to the consumers for appearing before the M.E.Laboratory at the time of alleged checking of the disputed meter. However, these notices have not been proved on record by the opposite parties. So the alleged checking of the meter was conducted in the M.E.Laboratory in the absence of the consumer or their representative.<br /> 12. Sh.Mohinder Singh, adv. counsel for the complainants has argued that notice,Ex.C2, may be declared illegal and quashed on the ground of violation of rule of audi alteram partem enshrined in commercial circular Nos.45/98 and 8/99 issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board .He submitted that the meter installed at the complainants premises was removed and got tested without complying with the mandatory procedure laid down in the two circulars and without giving him notice of the date, time and place of testing in ME lab and therefore, the same should be declared illegal and quashed. In support of his arguments Sh.Mohinder Singh, relied upon the decision Tarsem Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 584 (P&H).<br /> 13. We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel. For the purpose of deciding the legality of demand notice,Ex.C2, it will be useful to take cognizance of the instructions contained in Commercial Circular 8/99,the relevant extracts of which are <br /> reproduced below:-<br /> “As per existing instructions contained in para 2© of C.C.No.45/97 dated 17.12.97, it is mandatory that all meters removed against any meter change order(MCO) are to be sent to M.E.Lab, in the sealed card box duly signed by the concerned P.S.E.B. Officers/ officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case , the consumer refused to sign the meter test results/report, such meters shall be kept in the sealed box by the Op.S/Divn.till the final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Disputes Settlement Committee or Civil courts, such sealed meter shall be returned to the M.E.Labs.Similar procedure is to be adopted in case of meters sealed by the Enforcement Agencies/Operation Organization in theft cases.<br /> It has been brought to the notice of this office that above instructions are not being followed in letter and spirit with the result that the Board is losing cases in the Distt.Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums. It has been viewed very seriously by the higher Authorities. Accordingly, it is desired that above instructions should be followed meticulously and any officer/official found lacking in the implementation of these instructions shall be held personally responsible.”<br /> 14. At this stage notice may also be taken of Clause<br /> ( c ) of commercial circular No.45/98.The same reads as under:<br /> “( c ) In further( further?) all the meters removed against any meter change order (MCO) shall be sent to M.E.Laboratory in the sealed Card Board Box duly signed by the concerned P.S.E.B. Officer/official and the consumer or his representative. The testing of meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case, the consumer refused to sign the meter test results/report, such meter shall be kept in the sealed box by the Operation/S/Divn. till the final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Dispute Settlement Committee or Civil Courts such sealed meter shall be returned to the ME Labs. Similar procedure shall be adopted in case of meter sealed by the Enforcement Agency/Operation Organisation in theft cases.”<br /> 15. A bare reading of the above re-produced provisions of the Commercial Circular shows that the testing of the meter removed against any meter change order is to be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative. This necessarily means that a notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date , time and place of the testing of the meter.<br /> 16. In our opinion the procedure contained in the above referred circulars must be treated as mandatory because the same is intended to protect the consumer against arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities of the Board and ordinarily the demand created in violation there of would be liable to be invalidated .The complainants have as mentioned above come forward with the plea that the meter was removed from his premises and got tested without complying with the procedure contained in commercial circular No.8/99.He has categorically averred that before removing the meter and getting it tested the concerned authority did not give him the required notice. This has not been controverted by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned demand is violative of the instructions issued by the Board and the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed on that ground alone.<br /> 17. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/-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.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced:<br /> Dated:5.2.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />