DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.03/06.01.2009 Decided on : 15.04.2009 Smt. Shashi Bala wife of Sh. Rajinder Kumar alias Bitu Khan son of Sh. Khan Chand, Brij Lal Bhamme Wali Gali, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa, through its SDO(City) ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Ms.Devinder Kaur, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. P.K.Jindal, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Smt. Shashi Bala wife of Sh. Rajinder Kumar alias Bitu Khan, a resident of Mansa, has filed this complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(in short called the 'Act') against the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter called as the board), through its SDO( City), Mansa for setting aside notice served vide memo No.3299 dated 8.12.2008, for restoration of electric connection and for grant of compensation for mental and physical harassment in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Hari Ram S/o Sh.Kaka Ram, a resident of Mansa got installed electric connection bearing Account No.DB-13/022 in his house for consumption of electric Contd........2 : 2 : energy for domestic purpose. The said house has been purchased by the complainant from the previous owner. Since then she has been making the payment of amount of the electricity bills drawn upon her by the opposite party for electric energy consumed through the electric connection in question, as such, complainant is consumer of electric energy. The opposite party has served notice vide his office memo No. 3299 dated 8.12.2008 upon the complainant raising demand of Rs.12,270/- on the ground that complainant was found committing theft of electric energy by tampering with the chamber of the electric meter without disclosing the details regarding the manner in which theft has been committed. The officials of the board have removed the electric meter from the premises of the complainant in her absence. They have neither supplied her copy of the checking report nor got the electric meter checked from the M.E.lab. No opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant before service of impugned notice, as such, service of notice upon the complainant raising demand is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and impugned notice is liable to be set aside. The complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to service of notice, as such, he is entitled to payment of compensation. Hence the complaint. 3. On being put to notice, the opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant, has no cause of action and locus standi, to file the complaint because she is not the consumer of electric energy under the opposite party as electric connection in question has been installed in the name of Hari Ram S/o Sh.Kaka Ram; that electric meter installed in the house in occupation of the complainant, was checked by Sh.R.K.Goyal, Executive Engineer, Enforcement, Bathinda in the presence of her husband Bitu Khan and the said officer found that body of the electric meter had been tampered with. The said representative of the Contd........3 : 3 : complainant affixed his signatures on the checking report after receipt admitting the contents thereof. Impugned notice has been served upon the complainant after provisional assessment for payment of Rs.12,270/- rightly as per rules of the board on the subject. This Forum has no jurisdiction, it being a case of theft of electric energy and that complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum of installation of electric connection in the name of Hari Ram S/o Sh.Kaka Ram is admitted, but it is submitted that complainant has not conveyed any intimation to the opposite party regarding purchase of said house by her and for change of electric meter in her name. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the complainant tendered her affidavit, Exhibit C-3, and copies of documents Ext.C-1 and C-2 before his counsel closed her evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party has also tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh.Ajaib Singh, SDO Ext.OP-1 and copies of documents, Ext.OP-2 & OP-3 and closed evidence, on their behalf. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant Ms.Devinder Kaur Advocate, has submitted, at the out set, that there is no allegation that complainant had tampered with the seals of electric meter and the opposite party has not disclosed the manner in which she was allegedly found committing theft of electric energy. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no documentary proof to show that copy of checking report was ever supplied to the complainant and the meter removed from her premises was neither got checked from the M.E.lab, nor produced in the Forum , as such, impugned notice is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. Learned Contd........4 : 4 : counsel further submitted that service of notice, without compliance of mandatory rules of the board, is deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite party and due to the removal of the electric meter from the house in occupation of the complainant, she has been subjected to mental and physical harassment, as such, she is entitled to seek compensation. 7. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the opposite party Sh.P.K.Jindal, Advocate, has argued that as per record of the board, electric connection has not been installed in the name of the complainant as she has not given any intimation regarding the purchase of the house and has not filed an application for change of electric connection in her name, as such, she is not consumer, within the purview of its definition given in the Act and, has no locus standi, to file the complaint and for the same reason is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant, has drawn our attention, to the copy of registered sale deed Ext.C-1 showing that the house, in which meter in question has been installed, had been purchased by the complainant from the previous owner. Learned counsel, has argued that, even if, the complainant could not move the opposite party for transfer of the electric connection in her name, for one reason or the other, even then, she is beneficiary and consumer of electric energy under the opposite party. Learned counsel, has argued that for the aforesaid reasons the complainant, has locus standi to file the complaint, which is maintainable before the Consumer Forum. 9. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, because as per definition of the word 'consumer' given in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, a person who avails of any services for consideration including beneficiary of those services is a consumer. Although, electric connection is admittedly in the name of Hari Ram S/o Sh.Kaka, but as per copy of registered sale deed dated 3.1.2008 Ext.C-1, produced on record by the complainant, she has purchased the Contd........5 : 5 : house wherein electric connection in question has been installed. After purchase of the house, complainant has stepped into the shoes of his predecessor-in-interest for all intents and purposes. The opposite party, has not denied the fact that complainant is in occupation of the house where the said electric connection, has been installed and it is also not their case that the complainant is not depositing the amount of electricity bills drawn upon her for consumption of electricity through the electric meter in question after the date of purchase. No plea has been taken by the opposite party that sale deed dated 3.1.2008, relied upon by the complainant, is false and fabricated. Even impugned notice dated 8.12.2008 Ext.C-2, has been served care of Bitu Khan, husband of the complainant. As such, complainant being beneficiary and user of the electric energy through the electric meter, is consumer within the ambit of its definition given in the Act and has locus standi to file the complaint and her complaint in the Consumer Forum is maintainable. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party has further submitted that electric meter was checked in the presence of the husband of the complainant by the Executive Engineer (Enforcement), Bathinda, against whom she has not alleged any enmity, as such, he has no reason to plant false case upon her. Learned counsel argued that copy of the checking report has been supplied to the husband of the complainant at the time of checking and he has affixed his signatures thereon after admitting the contents thereof, as such, there was no need to get the electric meter, removed from the house of the complainant, checked in her presence in the M.E.lab. Learned counsel further submitted that opportunity of being heard was given to the complainant in the impugned notice served after making provisional assessment by the competent authority, but she appeared to have not availed the said opportunity, as evident from the affidavit of the Sh.Ajaib Singh, as such, complainant has no reason to grumble on that score. Learned counsel argued that complainant has failed Contd........6 : 6 : to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in service of impugned notice or removal of electric meter from her house, as such, complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs. 11. We are not impressed by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party, because as per allegations made in the written version, Sh.Ajaib Singh, SDO, whose affidavit has been tendered by the opposite party, has not been accompanying the Executive Engineer (Enforcement), Bathinda, at the time of checking of electric meter installed in the house in occupation of the complainant. The checking report Ext.OP-3 does not bear the the signatures of the Assessing Authority and also do not contain the details of evidence gathered by the members of the checking staff, as envisaged in Clause 3(d) of the Circular No.53/2006, issued by the board on the subject. As per the contents of the checking report and two notes mentioned therein, the complainant was found making use of electric energy within the sanctioned limit on the date of checking by the checking staff and the said officer has drawn inference of commission of theft of electric energy merely because he found the chamber of electric meter tampered with. It is not the case of the opposite party that seals affixed on the electric meter were also tampered with. In our opinion, mere tampering with the chamber of the electric meter does not amount to theft of electric energy, even if, the husband of the complainant, had affixed his signatures admitting the contents of the checking report to be correct. Since the electric meter installed in the house in occupation of the complainant, has been removed, therefore, in order to prove the theft of electric energy, it was incumbent upon the opposite party, to seek report of the M.E. Lab, if any tampering has been done by her, after service of prior notice upon her. The opposite party did not find it appropriate to secure the report of the M.E. Lab, for the reasons best know to him. Therefore, on the basis of the affidavit of Sh. Ajaib Contd........7 : 7 : Singh, SDO alone, who has no personal knowledge about the checking of electric meter installed in the house of the complainant, liability cannot be fastened upon her to pay any amount on account of theft of electric energy. The Forum cannot draw any adverse inference against the complainant merely because she has not alleged any hostile animus against the officer who inspected her electric meter or that she has not availed opportunity of being heard and has failed to file objections against the impugned notice within the period stipulated therein. 12. In the light of our above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in removal of the electric meter from the house of the complainant and service of notice upon her to make payment on the basis of checking report Ext.OP-3 alone. Since the complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to removal of electric meter installed in her house and service of impugned notice raising demand of huge amount by the opposite party in arbitrary and illegal manner, as such, she is also entitled to payment of compensation. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and set aside memo No.3299 dated 8.12.2008, Ext.OP-2 served upon the complainant and direct the opposite party not to disconnect the electric supply to her house on the basis of the same. They are also directed to refund the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant in term of interim order dated 6.1.2009, along with interest, at the rate of 9 percent per annum, from the date of deposit, till date of actual payment with further direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-, as compensation. The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Contd........8 : 8 : 14. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 15.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
