DHARAM SINGH PRESIDENT<br /> Parkash Devi complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal and unlawful charges of Rs.20,699/- charged against sundry charges and to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having a electric connection bearing account No. SP-51/0144 as beneficiary as the husband of the complainant has since been expired and the complainant is using the said connection exclusively for her self employment. She is paying all the electricity consumption bills as and when the bill is received by the complainant and nothing on account of consumption charges is due towards the complainant. She has received a bill issued on 23/10/2006 in which the opposite particular have charged an amount of Rs.20,699/- as sundry in the bill which is quite illegal, unlawful and against the rules and instructions of the PSEB. No detail of the sundry charges has been given in the bill as for what reasons the amount has been charged as sundry. After receipt of the bill the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and met the official of the opposite party No. 2 and it was told that the sundry charges has been charged on account of theft of electricity as the meter of the complainant was checked in the ME Lab. The old meter of the complainant was changed by the employees of the opposite party No. 2 about four five months back. The meter which was changed was working properly and the same was changed to install the electronic meter at the premises of the complainant. The meter of the complainant was removed and taken by the employees of the opposite parties unpacked and unsealed without raising any objection about the condition of the meter. No notice was served by the opposite parties to the complainant about the checking of the meter in the ME Lab. The meter was checked in ME Lab in absence of the complainant or her representative. No copy of the alleged checking report has been ever supplied to the complainant. The complainant against visited the opposite party No. 2 to withdraw the illegal charges but he did not agree rather threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant in case the full amount of bill is not deposited. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which she claims Rs.30000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 31-10-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. M.S.Brar Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that complainant has failed to comply with orders of this Hon'ble Forum dated 31/10/2006, he did not deposit the requisite amount within stipulated period as per directions contained in the above order so the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is not triable in this Forum in view of the relevant provision of Electricity Act, 2003 Section 126 of the Act and the same is liable to be rejected. On merits the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. Original consumer Diwan Chand being husband of the complainant is denied for want of knowledge. Moreover the complainant has never come to get the connection in her name by completing all the formalities nor she has ever informed the opposite parties about the death of original consumer. Complainant being an old lady of 60 years is not expected to do any business for her self employment. The connection is used for gaining profits, so the present complaint is not maintainable. The amount of Rs. 20699/- charged in the bill for 10/2006 is legal and as per instructions of the PSEB. The amount has been charged in the bill after serving due registered notice vide No. 3079 dated 2/8/2006 accompanied by supplementary bill. Before charging the amount in bill complete details were given to the consumer through registered notice. The demand of the opposite parties is legal. The demand has been raised on account of theft of energy. The three phase meter installed at the premises of the consumer after replacement was sent to ME Lab where on the basis of written consent of the consumer the meter was taken out from the seal packed box. ME seals of the meter were found intact. Meter glass/window was found tampered at the place shown in the sketch drawn on the meter checking report. Meter glass was opened and it was found that there were sings of scratches inside the meter glass at the place of tampering. There were also signs of cuts at the gasket of the meter glass. Signs of scratches were also present at the figure of 1000. In this way the consumer was found unauthorizedly controlling the consumption of the meter by tampering the meter glass. The meter was checked by Senior Xen ME Lab Bathinda in the presence of Senior Xen Enforcement II Bathinda, JE ME Lab Bathinda and JE Operation Sub Division, Kotkapura. Meter checking report was prepared at the spot and was signed by all the officers/officials mentioned above. After receipt of MCR in the office of opposite party No. 2 registered notice with checking report was sent to the consumer. The meter was to be checked in ME Lab so there was no question of raising any objection about the condition of the meter at the site. The representative of the consumer on his own volition gave written consent to get the meter checked in ME Lab in the absence of the consumer. So the meter was checked in the ME Lab on the basis of the written consent of her representative. The opposite parties has not caused any mental tension and harassment to the complainant, so the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Hence the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, bill dated 15/10/2006 Ex.C-2, receipt no. 16 dated 23/11/2006 Ex.C-3, bills Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8 and closed her evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sadhu Singh AAE PSEB Kotkapura Ex.R-1, attested copy of notice No. 3079 dated 2/8/2006 Ex.R-2, attested copy of supplementary bill Ex.R-3, attested copy of ME checking report dated 29/5/2006 Ex.R-4, affidavit of V.K.Bansal Senior Xen ME Lab Bathinda Ex.R-5, attested copy of store challan Ex.R-6, attested copy of consent Ex.R-7, affidavit of Gurdip Singh AAE Sub Urban Sub Divn. PSEB Kotkapura Ex.R-8, affidavit of Avtar Singh JE ME Lab Bathinda Ex.R-9 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on account of change of the mechanical meter by an electronic meter the opposite parties have no right to check working of the meter which at no time was reported by any person to have been tampered with by the complainant prior to removing of the same or even at the time of removing of the meter. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that it is a theft case as reported by the ME lab where the opposite parties found figure No. 3 to having scratches. Glass window also had scratches to prove tampering with the meter by the complainant. <br /> 10. Admittedly the mechanical meter was changed with the electronic meter by the opposite parties. As per store challan Ex.R-6 the meter is reported to have been changed on 17/3/2006 with electronic meter. The checking is reported to have been done on 29/5/2006 as per checking register entry Ex.R-4. Bill has been prepared on the basis of the supplementary bill Ex.R-3 on 1/8/2006 payable perhaps uptill 17/8/2006. Show cause notice have been issued on 2/8/2006 on the basis of checking report dated 29/5/2006 carried out by the ME Lab Bathinda. The meter was checked as per written consent of the consumer by taking out the meter from seal packed box in ME Lab Bathinda. The ME seals were found to be intact, glass/window of the meter stood tampered with by checking the meter from its inner side after opening the glass it was found that from the site of the tampered glass in the inner side there were signs of scratches, there was a cut in the gasket of the glass of the meter. There were scratches on the figure 1000 so the complainant was held to have controlled running of the meter unauthorizedly and it is a theft case. The consent Ex.R-7, it has been given by Ramesh Kumar son of Diwan Chand without any date however there is a date 12/3/2006 under the signatures of Assistant Executive Engineer Sub Urban Sub Division Kotkapura. There is discrepancy and differences of above noted dates. Parkash Devi complainant is widow of Diwan Chand consumer who is using the electric connection for his exclusive self employment as NRS connection to run a Atta Chakki. Diwan Chand has expired so user of the electric connection is Parkash Devi has right to file this complaint. In any case if Ramesh Kumar is considered to be representative of Parkash Devi still the consent is of no use in view of the commercial circular No. 64/2005. It runs as under:<br /> 2. 3-Phase Electron Mech. Meters<br /> i) All 3 phase electro-mechanical meters which are lying pack sealed as on date and do no possess the signatures of the consumers or the paper seals while packing of the meter, should be returned to ME Labs as such without carrying out any checking since adverse detections, if any cannot be legally sustained as the meter has been pack sealed without the signatures of the consumer. <br /> ii) All 3 phase electro-mechanical meters, which have been removed while replacing them with electronic meters and having the status code O.K. (O) in the last cycle of billing, should be returned to the ME Lab without carrying out any checking, even if they are pack sealed with the signatures of the consumers. <br /> iii) In future while replacing 3 phase electro-mechanical meters with electronic meters, if there is an evidence of tampering/theft etc. then the JE must specifically record his observations, indicating reasons on the MCO itself, while declaring a meter as doubtful. Such meters shall be packed and sealed in the presence of the consumer with his signatures appended on it and such meters shall be checked jointly by ME Orgn. and Enforcement officers in the ME Labs only in the presence pf the consumer in case of meters replaced against key exemptions, the same will be returned to ME Labs as per disputed meter's instructions. <br /> The mechanical meter was working properly as status report of the meter all the times were 'O'. In such like circumstances where no person from the opposite parties have reported working of the meter to be doubtful the opposite parties had no right to get the meter checked in the ME Lab. The authorities Naresh kumar Vs. Sub Divisional officer, City Sub Division, PSEB Patti and another reported in 2002(3) Consumer Law Today-698, M/s S.B.Industries Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another reported in 2002(1) Consumer Law Today-391, Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Devendra Singh and another reported in The Punjab Law Reporter Vol. CXLIV- (2006-3) page-14, W.B.S.E.B. Vs. Annapurna Begi reported in 2005 (3) Consumer Law Today-259, Keshav Babu Tare Vs. Executive Engineer M.S.E.B. and another reported in 2004(2) Consumer Law Today-235 and Sulakhan Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board reported in 2002(1) Consumer Law Today-305 are related to the period prior to issuance of the commercial circular No. 64/2005. Even these authorities are not related to change of the mechanical meter with the electronic meter while the previous meter was reported to have not been challenged by any person and status of the same was OK. So these authorities are not helpful to the opposite parties in any manner. <br /> 11. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs.20,699/- charged in the bill issued on 15/10/2006 within one month from the date of the receipt of this order. No order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. If any amount already deposited by the complainant with regard to this amount the same shall be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in the subsequent bills. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 1/8/2007<br /> <br />