DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 71 of 21.2.2007<br /> Decided on: 3.12.2007<br /> <br /> <br /> Mr.Sukhpinder Pal Alias Supinder Pal R/o House No.29, Seetal Colony, Rajpura.<br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> <br /> The Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> <br /> ----------Opposite party.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.Mohinder Singh, adv.<br /> For opposite party: Smt.Puja Puri, adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant, Supinder Pal has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite party mentioned in the head note of the complaint.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That the complainant is holder of electric connection No.GF 09/1942 with connected load being 11.46 KWs and tariff domestic. It is installed at his residence and is served by West Sub Division of Rajpura (office) of the opposite party. That the complainant has received a demand notice No.471/74 dated 7.2.2007 for payment of rs.24,770/- within a week when the notice has been delivered only two days back. The amount is being claimed on account of theft of energy/unauthorized use of energy. Nothing has been mentioned the manner of theft/unauthorized use of energy and by whom the premises were checked for the purpose and on which date. It is a concocted story to fleece the complainant. No M.E.Lab report has been enclosed. The complainant was also not called in the M.E.Lab for checking of the meter in his presence. No details of the electric meter have been mentioned in the notice. Nothing about MCO, etc. has been given in the notice. That the complainint has been to the office of the opposite party at Rajpura for explaining the position about the notice, but in vain and they did not agree to withdraw it. That the complainant is a consumer, facts stated above constitute consumer dispute, payment of bills is consideration and sending of the impugned notice is deficiency in service in terms of provisions of section 2 of the Act. That the action of the opposite party in sending the impugned notice is illegal and arbitrary. Hence this complaint<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that a demand of Rs.24,770/- has been raised against the complainant for committing theft of electric energy. It is denied that it is a concocted story of the board. It is denied that no theft has been committed by the complainant of the electric energy. It is denied that the meter was not got checked from the M.E.Lab. It is denied that the complainant was not informed about the checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab.The meter was changed vide M.C.O.dated 26.6.2006, which was affected on 9.9.2006, in the presence of the representative of the consumer who had counter signed the M.C.O. It is denied that no detail has been mentioned in the M.C.O.In fact, the meter was found burnt by the concerned official, who had affected the M.C.O. and had reported that the meter had burnt and the particulars of the meter are not visible. The demand has been raised as per rules. The correct facts of this case are that the complainant had filed an application in the concerned office of the Board on 26.6.2006 that his meter has burnt and the same may be replaced. The concerned office of the board had immediately deputed the concerned JE of the Board to the premises of the consumer for checking and report about the meter of the complainant. The concerned JE had visited the site of the consumer and had reported that the meter has completely burnt and the particulars of the meter are not readable. The M.C.O.was passed by the concerned S.D.O. and the same was affected on 9.9.2006.The meter was sent to M.E.Lab for checking of the same and the M.E.lab had found that the meter has burnt.In fact, the complainant has himself burnt the meter by adopting illegal methods as he was committing the theft of electric energy. The complainant was well aware of the fact that the board will pass the orders of M.C.O. as per policy decision of the Board, vide which it has been decided to install the electronic meters in all the premises of the consumers through out the state of Punjab. The complainant had anticipated and filed the application for change of the meter himself, so that he may not be caught by the board and a case of theft of electric energy may not be registered against him. In fact, the consumption data of the said connection proves the fact that the complainant was committing theft of electric energy. Even after the change of the meter i.e. on 9.9.2006, the connection of the complainant was again checked on 12.4.2007, in the presence of the consumer/representative and the checking officer had found that the consumer was committing theft of electric energy as the consumer was found to be using the electricity by tampering the meter.The complainant seems to be habitual of committing the theft of electric energy and the amount has been legally charged as penalty for committing theft of electric energy. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and has prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.C1, notice dated 7.2.2007,Ex.C2 and copy of reply,Ex.C3.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of SDO Ashok Kumar,Ex.R1, affidavit of JE Dev Raj,Ex.r2, copy of letter of consumer,Ex.R3, copy of MCO dated 26.6.2006,Ex.R4 ,Copy of ME lab report,Ex.R5,copy of demand notice,Ex.R6,and copy of checking report dated 12.4.2007,Ex.R7.<br /> 6. The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 7. Sh.Mohinder Singh, adv. counsel for the complainant has argued that notice,Ex.C2, may be declared illegal and quashed on the ground of violation of rule of audi alteram partem enshrined in commercial circular Nos.45/98 and 8/99 issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board .He submitted that the meter installed at the complainant’s premises was removed and got tested without complying with the mandatory procedure laid down in the two circulars and without giving him notice of the date, time and place of testing in ME lab and therefore, the same should be declared illegal and quashed. In support of his arguments Sh.Mohinder Singh, relied upon the decision Tarsem Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 584 (P&H).<br /> 8. We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel. For the purpose of deciding the legality of demand notice,Ex.C2, it will be useful to take cognizance of the instructions contained in Commercial Circular 8/99,the relevant extracts of which are <br /> reproduced below:-<br /> “As per existing instructions contained in para 2© of C.C.No.45/97 dated 17.12.97, it is mandatory that all meters removed against any meter change order(MCO) are to be sent to M.E.Labs, in the sealed card box duly signed by the concerned P.S.E.B. Officers/ officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case , the consumer refused to sign the meter test results/report, such meters shall be kept in the sealed box by the Op.S/Divn.till the final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Disputes Settlement Committee or Civil courts, such sealed meter shall be returned to the M.E.Labs.Similar procedure is to be adopted in case of meters sealed by the Enforcement Agencies/Operation Organization in theft cases.<br /> It has been brought to the notice of this office that above instructions are not being followed in letter and spirit with the result that the Board is losing cases in the Distt.Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums. It has been viewed very seriously by the higher Authorities. Accordingly, it is desired that above instructions should be followed meticulously and any officer/official found lacking in the implementation of these instructions shall be held personally responsible.”<br /> 9. At this stage notice may also be taken of Clause<br /> ( c ) of commercial circular No.45/98.The same reads as under:<br /> “( c ) In further( further?) all the meters removed against any meter change order (MCO) shall be sent to M.E.Laboratory in the sealed Card Board Box duly signed by the concerned P.S.E.B. Officer/official and the consumer or his representative. The testing of meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case, the consumer refused to sign the meter test results/report, such meter shall be kept in the sealed box by the Operation/S/Divn. till the final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Dispute Settlement Committee or Civil Courts such sealed meter shall be returned to the ME Labs. Similar procedure shall be adopted in case of meter sealed by the Enforcement Agency/Operation Organisation in theft cases.”<br /> 10. A bare reading of the above re-produced provisions of the Commercial Circular shows that the testing of the meter removed against any meter change order is to be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative. This necessarily means that a notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date , time and place of the testing of the meter.<br /> 11. In our opinion the procedure contained in the above referred circulars must be treated as mandatory because the same is intended to protect the consumer against arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities of the Board and ordinarily the demand created in violation there of would be liable to be invalidated .The complainant has as mentioned above come forward with the plea that the meter was removed from his premises and got tested without complying with the procedure contained in commercial circular No.8/99.He has categorically averred that before removing the meter and getting it tested the concerned authority did not give him the required notice. This has not been controverted by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned demand is violative of the instructions issued by the Board and the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed on that ground alone.<br /> 12. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced:<br /> Dated:3.12.2007<br /> <br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />