BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA<br /> <br /> Complaint No.67/ 23.05.2008<br /> Decided on : 21.10.2008<br /> <br /> Nazam Singh S/o Sh.Natha Singh S/o Sh.Waryam Singh resident of Sirsa Road, Near New Grain Market, Mansa<br /> ......Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> Assistant Executive Engineer,City, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa.<br /> ..... Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Satish Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the complainant.<br /> Sh.S.K.Chhabra, Advocate, for the Opp.Party .<br /> <br /> Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member.<br /> Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER:<br /> <br /> 1. Being the subscriber of domestic electric connection bearing Account No.SA33/0278, complainant Nazam Singh (referred to as CC for short) is aggrieved by the demand of Rs.6,820/- raised through impugned memo No.1304 dated 13.5.2008. CC's case is that, in fact, the said impugned demand is on the basis of audit party's report in which he was never associated and during the relevant period for which the demand was made, his electric meter was dead. Therefore, according to the CC, the demand is illegal and wrong. As such, alleging deficiency in service, the present complaint is filed seeking reliefs of directing the OP to : a) quash demand of Rs.6,820/- raised through impugned memo dated 13.5.2008, b) pay to the CC a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. In reply, legal objections on the grounds of jurisdiction, cause<br /> Contd.......2<br /> : 2 :<br /> <br /> of action, locus standi, concealment of material facts and maintainability are taken up. It was admitted by the Opposite party that meter of the CC was defective and, according to them, bills were sent on average basis as per rules and regulations. <br /> 3. Parties led evidence.<br /> 4. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after careful scrutiny of the evidence, CC has made out a case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for these reasons.<br /> 5. It is admitted case of both the parties that meter was faulty and deficient. Therefore, admittedly, the impugned demand is made on the basis of Audit Party's report. The M.E. Laboratory report on record is Ex.OP-4, which shows that the meter is dead, though the seals were OK. It is nobody's case in the reply that the replaced meter was ever sent to M.E. Laboratory. The meter was required to be sent along with the report to the M.E. Laboratory which process is not adopted by the opposite party, which is clear cut violation of 77.1.1 of Sales Regulation, which envisages that on receipt of report regarding meter becoming dead it should be promptly replaced and necessary inquiries made and along with the report shall be sent to the M.E. Laboratory for further action.<br /> 6. Even earlier also it is settled that primal responsibility of correct metering of the electrical energy and its equipment lies on the Board unless tampering or other mal practice is established. The CC cannot be held liable for the fault of the meter, if any, and it is for the opposite party to either check the same or replace it, if it is defective. Similar view has been expressed by the Punjab State Commission in P.S.E.B. Versus Ashok Kumar 1994(I) CLT 415.<br /> 7. It is the opposite part's admitted case that the said demand has been raised on account of the audit report during the course of which the payable amount was found deficit. Surprisingly, no such audit report is on the record, nor the CC seems to have been ever associated in the same, nor<br /> Contd.......3<br /> : 3 :<br /> <br /> a copy of the audit report seems to have accompanied the impugned memo.<br /> It was observed that in case of one phase of meter not recording the reading, Punjab State Commission in P.S.E.B. & others Versus M.S.Arihant Processors 2002(II)C.P.C. 86 observed that in case of theft of electricity, the report of Audit Party without joining the complainant cannot be the conclusive proof of theft of electricity.<br /> 8. Mr.Chhabra, learned counsel for the opposite party, raised a feeble contention that the impugned memo is calculated on the basis of average billing for the correspondence period of four months. In support of this he placed reliance upon documents Ex.OP-5 to OP-7. In our view in view of the violation of above mentioned Sales Regulation, as also the material infirmity of not making available to the CC the audit report or his association thereof during the course of such audit, we find Mr.Chhabra's contention will not augur well for him, nor can it relieve the opposite party of its obligation to comply with the mandatory provisions of law, pointed out as above. <br /> 9. In this view of the matter, we allow the complaint and direct <br /> the opposite party to:<br /> a) withdraw the demand of Rs.6,820/- raised in the impugned memo dated 13.5.2008 <br /> <br /> b) Pay to the CC a sum of Rs.1,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation.<br /> <br /> 10. This order of ours shall be complied with within 60 days of its communication.<br /> 11. A copy of this order be supplied to each of party free of cost. File be arranged, indexed and consigned to records.<br /> Announced:<br /> 21.10.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, <br /> Member. Member.