consumer forum mansa consumer forum mansa consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/214
Roop Chand
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
PSEB
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Neena Rani Gupta 2. Sh Sarat Chander
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.214/12.12.2008 Decided on : 23.04.2009 Sh.Roop Chand S/o Sh. Chanan Ram S/o Sh.Pat Ram, Brij Bhamme Wali Gali, Ward No.17, Near Nim wala chowk, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa, through its Executive Engineer. 2.Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Sub Divisional Officer, City, Sub Division, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. S.K.Singla, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.V.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member Sh.Roop Chand S/o Sh. Chanan Ram (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board through its Executive Engineer and Sub Divisional Officer (hereinafter called as opposite Parties) for issuance of a direction to them to set aside Memo No. 3300 dated 8.12.2008 and also pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- regarding mental tension and litigation costs. Brief facts of this complaint are that the complainant had obtained electric connection bearing Account No.DG130039 for domestic purposes in his house and he had been paying the electric consumption Contd........2 : 2 : charges from time to time, as such, he is the consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant has never tempered with the electric meter, but the opposite parties have served notice, vide Memo No. 3300 dated 8.12.2008, upon him raising demand of Rs.11,307/-, on the allegation of commission of theft of electric energy. On being approached, by the complainant, OP No.2 refused to withdraw the notice and gave threat to disconnect the electric supply. The complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to service of illegal notice upon him, because in the notice the opposite parties have taken the plea that complainant has tampered with the M&T seals of his electric meter without getting the same checked from the M.E. Lab. The said act does not amount to commission of theft of electric energy. The demand raised by the opposite parties is pre mature and he has not been served copy of the checking report and has not been offered any opportunity of being heard before service of impugned notice, as such, opposite parties was stated to be deficient in service. Hence this complaint. The Opposite Parties in their written version have taken certain legal objections and challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and is bound to make the payment of amount mentioned in the Memo. On merits the factum of issuance of electric connection is admitted, but it was denied that the demand was in any way illegal and the OP was deficient in service towards the complainant. On 4.12.2008, the premises of the complainant was checked by Sh.R.K.Goyal, XEN (Enforcement), Bathinda and the said officer found that he has tampered with the seals and after receiving the copy of the checking report from him one Dimple representing the complainant affixed the signatures on the checking report and Memo has been served after provisional assessment as per rules of the board. All other allegations were denied and a prayer for Contd........3 : 3 : 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. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that demand has been raised through the impugned notice on the allegation of theft of electric energy merely because their XEN found tampering of seals of the electric meter installed in his premises in the course of alleged checking without securing report of the M.E. Lab. Learned counsel further argued that for want of report of M.E. Lab, demand is pre mature and plea of the opposite parties cannot be accepted that complainant has indulged in commission of theft of electric energy even if it be assumed that he has tampered with the seals of the electric meter. Neither the checking has been done in the presence of the complainant nor copy of the checking report has been supplied to him at the time of alleged checking and the affidavit of the official who has done the checking has not been filed, whereas affidavit has been tendered of the SDO, who has no personal knowledge of the checking by the XEN, as such, factum of checking is not free from suspicion and impugned notice is liable to be set aside and complainant is entitled to seek compensation and costs from the opposite parties as prayed for in the instant complaint. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties has submitted that meter was removed, packed and sealed in the presence of his representative who has affixed his signatures admitting the contents of the checking report after receiving the copy thereof, as such, there was no necessity of checking the electric meter from the M.E. Lab. Learned counsel further argued that it is case of commission of theft of electric energy and not of deficiency in service, as such, complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. Contd........4 : 4 : Admittedly, complainant has got installed electric connection in question for domestic purposes. The opposite parties have tendered in evidence affidavit Ext.OP-1 of Sh.Ajaib Singh, SDO of the board, wherein he has not claimed that he accompanied Sh.R.K.Goyal, XEN (Enforcement), Bathinda as member of the checking team. The opposite parties have not examined Sh.R.K.Goyal, XEN who has conducted the checking, as such, the factum of checking of electric meter is not free from suspicion. As per the remarks given in the checking report Ext.OP-3, checking was done in the presence of one Dimple, but his parentage, address and relationship with the complainant is not disclosed. There is no evidence that copy of checking report was also sent through registered post or by any other means, which is mandatory requirement under the rules framed by the board. As per Clause 3(e) of the Circular No.53/2006, issued by the board on the subject, the opposite parties are supposed to send the copy of the checking report to the consumer subsequently by post in case checking has been done in his absence. No other evidence has been led by the opposite parties to prove the factum of checking of the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant. The report also does not contain the details of evidence gathered by the members of the checking staff, as envisaged in Clause 3(d) of the above said circular issued by the board on the subject. Moreover the said checking officer has drawn the conclusion of commission of theft of electric energy because he found the seals of electric meter of the complainant tampered with. In our opinion, mere tampering with the M&T seals does not amount to theft of electric energy. The affidavit of the complainant Ext.C-1 filed in support of his allegations made in the complaint is gone uncontroverted. As per contents of the checking report, meter installed was not removed, packed and sealed in the presence of the representative of the complainant named therein. In case the complainant has committed theft of electric energy, then it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to take such a recourse so Contd........5 : 5 : that electric meter should have been got checked from the M.E. Lab after giving notice to the complainant, but they have not taken any such action for the reasons best know to them. As such, onus was heavy on the opposite parties to prove commission of theft by the complainant by leading positive evidence, which they have failed to discharge. Otherwise also theft of electric energy is a serious offence and may have serious consequences, if established, as such, we are of the considered opinion that notice served upon the complainant by the opposite parties raising demand of Rs.11,307/-, on account of allegation of theft of electric energy, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Since the complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to service of illegal demand, therefore, he is also entitled to payment of adequate amount on account of costs and compensation. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and we set aside the impugned notice, Ext.C-2, served upon the complainant, vide letter No.3300 dated 8.12.2008 raising demand of Rs.11,307/-, and burden the opposite parties, in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation, and costs in the sum of Rs.1,000/- with further direction to refund the amount , if any, paid by the complainant, in terms of the interim order dated 12.12.2008, with interest @ 9 % from the date of deposit, till the date of actual payment, with the further direction to not to disconnect his electric connection for non-deposit of the amount of the impugned notice. The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced 23.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
