ORDER

PARAMJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is consumer of electricity connection installed at his residential house bearing A/c No. X15GC460471W which is in the name of his father Mohinder Pal and after death of his father, complainant is using the said connection being lawful consumer and beneficiary of the said connection and is regularly paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties.. It is further averred that as per policy of the Board, officials of the opposite parties replaced the old meter of the complainant with new meter which was installed outside the house of the complainant and they took the old meter of the complainant in good and working condition and at that time all the seals of the old meter were intact. Moreover, the employees took the meter by placing the same on the carrier of the bye-cycle.. Thereafter complainant received a letter memo No..1711 dated 13/11/2009 from opposite party No.3 for depositing Rs.8981/- and on inquiry he was told by the officials of the opposite parties that old meter was tampered but in the notice nothing sort of objection was made.. That tampering of the meter is totally false, baseless and manipulated story. Complainant was never informed for sending the meter to the ME Lab nor any notice was given to complainant to remain present at the time of checking. Thus opposite parties have violated the mandatory provisions of Sales REgulations and manipulated a false report. . Complainant requested the opposite parties to cancel the said demand mentioned in the notice but the opposite parties illegally disconnected the connection of complainant on 13/11/2009. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their -part against which complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties who appeared through counsel and filed written statement.

3. In support of his version complainant produced in evidence affidavit Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 to C4.

4. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R12.

5. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. The counsel for the complainant has argued that the electric connection having A/C No.X15GC460471W is installed in the name of Sh.Mohinderpal father of the complainant who has since expired and after the death of his father, complainant is using the said electric connection and is regularly paying the bills of electricity to the Electricity Board. The main plank of the case is that the complainant received a letter memo NO.1711 dated 13/11/2009 from the opposite party NO.2 for depositing Rs.8981/- as fine and on inquiry from the office, the concerned official told the complainant that the old meter was tampered but in the notice nothing sort of objection is made. The tampering of meter was totally false, baseless and manipulated sotry. The opposite party never informed complainant for sending the meter to the ME Lab and the meter was never checked in the presence of the complainant. The opposite party has violated the mandatory provisions of Sales Regulations of PSEB and manipulated false report. The said notice of the opposite parties is illegal, invalid against the actual facts Counsel for the complainant has requested to cancel the notice and prayed for the reliefs claimed.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has raised preliminary objection that complainant is not consumer of the PSEB. The connection in dispute was released in the name of Mohinderpal who has entered in bilateral agreement with PSEB and the complainant has never signed A & A form and has never informed that his father had died. Counsel for the opposite party has further argued that the team comprising Addl.SE Enforcement, PSEB, Kapurthala alongwith AAE Enforcement visited the premises of the complainant on 22/9/09 and in the presence of the complainant checked the meter on suspicious about the genuineness of the seals. They directed to check the meter in the ME Lab for confirming its accuracy. And noted their observations in the enforcement checking register at Sr. No.38/230 but the complainant refused to sign the said report. However, copy of the report was given to the complainant at the spot but the complainant refused to sign the same. And the old meter was replaced and was packed and sealed in card box, then sent to ME Lab vide challan NO.61 dated 12/11/09 alongwith the consent letter of the complainant for its checking in his absence and he will abide by the results so declared by ME Lab. The meter was checked in the ME Lab and found that the complainant has tampered the seals and after opening the meter cover, CT of meter has been changed and was suppressing his actual consumption . So a notice vide memo No.1711 dated 13/11/2009 alongwith report of ME Lab was issued to consumer Mohinderpal for depositing Rs.8981/- as compensation of theft of energy as per standing instructions of the department. The counsel for the opposite party has prayed that as the complainant found committing theft of energy, the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with costs.

6. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. Admittedly an electric connection having A/c NO.X`15GC460471W is installed in the name of Sh.Mohinderpal father of the complainant at New Model Town, Sultanpur Lodhi. The complainant being beneficiary is using the said electric connection and is regularly paying the bills is a consumer to the opposite parties under Section 2(i) d of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No doubt amount of Rs.8981/- is sought to be fastened upon the complainant by the opposite parties vide impunged memo No.1711 dated 13/11/09 on the allegation of theft of energy and sought to be proved through affidavit of Er.MalkitSingh Thind SDO Sultanpur Lodhi Sub Division NO.1 who has narrated the incident about theft of electricity committed by the complainant

On the other hand complainant had reuted the allegation of theft of energy . The old electric meter installed at the premises of the consumer was replaced by opposite party No.3 vide MCO No.135/81785 dated 23/9/09 Ex.R6. As per the opposite parties, the removed meter was packed in a card board box and sealed the same with the signatures of complainant. The consumer voluntarily gave undertaking in the form of consent letter Ex.R7 to the effect that meter be checked in his absence from the ME Lab and the results of the same shall be binding on him. The meter under question was sent to ME Lab by opposite party No.3 vide challan NO.61 dated 12/11/2009 and on checking the seals of th meter found tampered and disturbing internal mechanism was suppressing his actual consumption. Hence on the findings of ME Lab Ex.R9, it is established case of theft of energy against the consumer. And the complainant was served by the opposite party NO.3 with demand notice No.1711 dated 13/11/09 alongwith copy of checking report of ME Lab to deposit Rs. 8981/- as compensation of theft of energy. But on carefully examining the MCO No.135/81785 dated 23/9/09 Ex.R6, it is observed that neither there are signatures of any official who replaced the meter on the MCO nor the signatures of the complainant or any representative are appearing anywhere and the column meant for the signatures of complainant/representative on the MCO is left blank. Under these circumstances, it is not ascertained that the old meter was replaced or packed and sealed in the presence of complainant or his representative. This fact has also been reiterated by the complainant in para No.2 of his complaint followed by an affidavit vide Ex.CA . The demand of Rs.8981/- raised by opposite party NO.3 Ex.R10 to the complainant is based on report of ME Lab but procedure adopted is unilaterally

Reference is made to a case reported as PSEB vs. Daljit Singh 2007 (2) CLT 163 wherein impunged bill was quashed which was based on the ME Lab report but the procedure was conducted unilaterally

Reference is also made to another case filed before Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in an appeal No.1293 of 2001 titled as Punjab State Electricity BOard & others vs. Sham Sunder 2006 (1)CPC 103 wherein it was held that

XX XX XX

"Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections

12 & 15-Electricity-M.E. Lab test-District Forum quashed

demand of Rs.30,950/- raised against respondent/

complainant-Order challenged in appeal-Said

demand was based on ME Lab test which was not sealed

and packed in the presence of respondent/complainant-

Nor the report was signed by him-Said report

cannot be relied on- Moreover theft of energy

being a criminal offence, a very heavy

burden lies on appellant to prove act of offence

as held in Harneet Kaur’s case (appeal NO.964 of 2005)-

Appeal dismissed ."

XX XX XX

The demand of Rs.8981/- of opposite parties vide Ex.R10 based on ME Lab tests of old meter which was neither sealed and packed in the presence of complainant/representative nor the report is signed and the same is hereby quashed being illegal and against the rules and regulations of the department Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.4500/- already deposited by the complainant in terms of order of this Forum dated 19/11/09 with the further direction to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.

Let certified copies of order be sent to the parties without delay and file be consigned to record room.

Announced (Shashi Narang) Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh

5.2.2010 Member Member President