DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.138/14.08.2007 Decided on : 29.05.2008 Nirbhay Singh S/o Sh. Bant Singh S/o Sh.Deewan Singh, Bhikhi Road, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Budhlada, District Mansa. 2.Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. Zanny Kath, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Sunil Kumar Bansal, counsel for the opposite parties. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Nirbhay Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board at Budhlada, District Mansa , through its Executive Engineer , as well as its Sub Divisional Officer (hereinafter called as opposite Parties No.1 and 2 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the opposite parties to withdraw letter No. 2033 dated 27.07.2007 and also pay him compensation to the Contd........2 : 2 : tune of Rs.50,000/- regarding mental tension. Admitted facts of this complaint are that the father of the complainant Sh. Bant Singh S/o Sh.Deewan Singh had obtained electric connection bearing Account No.BP39/111 for domestic purposes. After the death of his father, the complainant had been paying the electric consumption charges from time to time. Being a beneficiary, the complainant is, as such, the consumer of the opposite parties. The meter of the complainant went out of order in the month of November, 2006 and a complaint in this regard had been lodged by the complainant with the OP Board. Upon his complaint, the officials of the OP Board checked the meter of the complainant by breaking the seals of the meter box and found the meter to be dead and made the electric supply direct. Thereafter the complainant was sent the consumption charges bills on average basis and he had been paying these bills regularly. In the year 2005, the complainant got the said meter changed with a computerized one and it was accordingly sealed in the meter box by the officials of the OP Board in such away that no body could approach the meter. It was further alleged by the complainant that in March 2007 the OP Board while removing the said meter had neither packed it in the box nor sealed it. The signatures of the complainant were also not obtained by the Ops. On 09.03.2007, the meter of the complainant was sent to the M.E. Laboratory, Bathinda and the signatures of the complainant were obtained by the Ops on the assertion that the meter is OK and will be checked by the department. The complainant has further alleged that the meter was never got checked in his presence The opposite parties had issued the impugned letter dated 27.07.2007 to the complainant, vide which an amount of Rs.24,344/- had been demanded from him on account of theft of energy. The demand has Contd........3 : 3 : been challenged by the complainant on the ground that the same is illegal as no checking was ever conducted by the opposite party in his presence, nor he had committed any theft of energy. The opposite parties were thus stated to be deficient in service. Hence this complaint. The OPs in their written version challenged the maintain-ability of the complaint on the ground that the connection was being used for commercial purposes and that the connection had been released in the name of the father of the complainant, and as such, the complainant was not their consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, it was contended that the meter was duly packed and sealed and thereafter on 9.3.2007 got it tested from the M.E. Laboratory in the presence of the complainant. As per report of the M.E. Laboratory ,the body of the meter was found tampered and the meter was also found stopped. It being a case of theft of energy, the jurisdiction of this Forum has also been challenged. It was denied that the demand was illegal and the OPs were deficient in service towards the complainant.. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. The perusal of the checking report, copy of which is exhibit OP-2, indicates that the complainant was alleged to be found using electricity by disturbing the Point A side and Point B side seals of the meter. The seal cover was also found loose. After opening the meter it was seen that at Phase B, the potential wire was found cut The checking report is duly signed by the officials of the Board. Since the signatures of Contd........4 : 4 : the complainant are also duly present on the checking report, thus, it is clearly established that the checking of the meter was done in his presence. The checking report clearly reveals that the complainant was committing theft of energy by tampering with the body of the meter and its meter seals. The counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on certain case laws cited in 2006(1)CPC285 ; 2007(1)CPC 181 ; 2007(2)CPC 486 N.C.; 2006(2)CPC135 ; 2005(2)CPC407 ; 2006(2)CPC137 ; 2004(1)CPC 279 and order dated 19.7.2007 in his support. In Satpal versus PSEB, 2006 (2) CPC 137 Punjab, a beneficiary is also held to be a consumer and this case law supports the contention of the complainant in the present case that he is the consumer of the OPs . We have thoughtfully considered the other case laws cited by the complainant but express our inability to go with them as these does not help him in one way or the other. Since the demand is based on the report of the M.E. Labora-tory that the complainant was committing theft of energy, the jurisdiction of this Forum is ousted on this score. The proceedings before this Forum being of summary nature, we are not supposed to enter into the controversy as to whether theft of energy was being actually committed or not in the manner alleged by the Board. In view of the above said facts, the complaint being not legally maintainable is dismissed. However, the complainant may avail any other remedy available to him in accordance with law Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost under the rules. File be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced 29.05.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member. Contd........4
