DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No. 12/28.1.2009 Decided on : 25.5.2009 Sh. Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Hukam Chand, resident of Ward No. 13, Ramji Pardhan Wali Gali, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Sub Divisional Officer(C), Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. S.K. Singla, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. Naval Kumar Goel, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh. Sarat Chander, Member. Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. 1. This complaint, has been filed, by Sh. Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Hukam Chand, resident of Ward No.13, Ramjit Pardhan Wali Gali, Mansa, 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 Memo No. 652 dated 2.2.2009, issued by his office and for payment of compensation, in the sum of Rs. 5000/- and costs of filing of complaint. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant, is as under:- 2. That he has secured, electric connection, bearing Account No. SR-18/522, in his house, for consumption of electric energy, for domestic purposes. Since the date of installation, of electric connection, the complainant, has been making payment, of electricity bills, drawn upon him, by the opposite parties and no amount is outstanding, against him, as such Contd.....2..... : 2 : he is consumer of electric energy, under the opposite party, qua the said electric connection. The opposite party has served, notice upon him, vide his office Memo No. 652 dated 2.2.2009, raising demand of Rs. 23,676/-, on the ground of allegations of theft of electric energy, which is illegal as complainant, has never indulged, in theft of electric energy, and he never tempered seals, of his meter or its body. The tempering of seals also, does not amount, to commission of theft of electric energy. The opposite party neither, got the electric meter, installed in the premises, of the complainant, checked from the M.E. Lab., nor supplied copy of checking report, as such allegations, made in the complaint, about theft of electric energy, are not proved and there is deficiency in service, on the part of opposite, due to service of illegal notice, upon him and impugned Memo is liable, to be set aside. The complainant has been, subjected to mental and physical harassment and has incurred avoidable expenses, for filing of this complaint. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, the opposite parties filed, written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, is not entitled, to the reliefs prayed for, as he has not approached, this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed, the material facts, as it was found committing theft of electric energy, by Sh. R.K. Goel, Executive Engineer (Enforcement), and other officials of the board on 19.1.2009, in which it has been found, that he has tempered, with ME seals and body of the meter; that officials of the board, had also supplied, copy of the checking report, to Sh. Nikhil Kumar, son of the complainant and demand, has been raised, after provisional assessment, as such, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try this complaint and complainant, has no locus standi, to file the complaint, which is false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum of issuance of the electric meter, in question in the name, of the complainant, is not denied alongwith the fact that he is 'Consumer' of electric energy, as per record of the board. The allegations regarding, raising of demand, on the basis of Contd.....3.... : 3 : checking of electric meter installed, in the premises of the complainant on 19.1.20-09 by Sh. R.K. Goel, Executive Engineer (Enforcement), and other officials of the board have been reiterated alongwith the fact, that copy of checking report, was supplied, to Sh. Nikhil Kumar son of the complainant. It is denied, that there is deficiency in service on the part of the board or that complainant is entitled to seek compensation from him as prayed in the complaint. 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 counsel for the complainant furnished his affidavit and copy of notice Ext. C-1 to C-2 and he closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party, tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh. Ajaib Singh(SDO), affidavit of Sh. R.K. Goel, Executive Engineer Enforcement, copies of documents, Ext.OP-1 to OP-2 and closed his evidence. 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. At the out set, learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. S.K. Singla, Advocate has submitted, that demand raised, through the impugned notice, is not sustainable because checking of electric meter installed, in the premises of the complainant, has not been done in his presence. There is no proof of, supply of copy of checking report. Learned counsel has also submitted, that details of evidence, gathered at the time of checking, by the checking team, of the board are not found mentioned, in the copy of checking report Ext. OP-2 and parentage/address and relationship of the person, who affixed his signatures, on the checking report, are not disclosed therein, s such factum of checking is not free from suspicion as impugned memo is liable to be set aside, and complainant is liable to seek payment of compensation and costs of filing of instant complaint. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party, Sh. Naval Kumar, Advocate has submitted, that checking report, has been Contd....4.... : 4 : signed by the son of the complainant, after receiving copy, of the said document, as such interference is that he has admitted, the contents of checking report. Learned counsel has further argued, that complainant has not filed, any application, for checking of electric meter, removed from his premises, in his presence by M.E. Lab, and has not alleged, any enmity towards, the checking team. Learned counsel has argued, that factum of checking is fully proved, by the affidavits of Senior Executive Officers of the board and complainant, has not specifically denied, the allegations and relationship with the person, of receiving the copy, on his behalf in his affidavit, tendered in his evidence, as such, there is no deficiency in service, which may invite, indulgence of this Forum and opposite party may be burdened, with costs and compensation. 8. Admittedly, the electric connection in question, has been installed in the residential house, by the opposite party and he has secured, the same for consumption of electric energy, for domestic purpose. The opposite party has not denied, the submissions, made in the complaint, that complainant has been regularly, making the payment, of electricity bills, drawn upon him and no amount, was outstanding on, that score before service of impugned notice, raising demand of Rs. 23,676/- towards him, as such, he is 'Consumer' of opposite party. The opposite party has not produced, on record, any proof, to establish, that copy of checking report, was affixed, on the premises of the complainant after his representative refused, to receive the same or subsequently was sent through registered post, as required vide Clause 3(e) of Circular No. 53/2006, issued by the board, on the subject. The complainant, has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and in his duly sworn affidavit Ext. C-1, that no checking, was done of the electric meter, installed in his premises, in his presence. The contents of affidavit, of Sh. R.K. Goel, Executive Engineer (Enforcement) of the board Ext. OP-4 are not corroborated, by affidavit of any other member of the team whereas, in his affidavit of Sh. Ajaib Singh, SDO, Ext. OP-1, has not been claimed, the member of the checking team. Contd......5.... : 5 : As such, factum of checking, is not free from suspicion. 9. The copy of the checking report tendered in evidence by the opposite party does not bear the signatures of complainant, parentage/address and relationship of the person who affixed signatures on the said document, are not disclosed therein. The copy of checking report also contains, no remarks, regarding supply of copy thereof, to the representative, of the complainant, whose signatures are found affixed, at two places. There are no signatures of assessing authority, in the copy of checking report, Ext. OP-2 and details of the evidence, gathered by the members of the checking team, are not found, mentioned therein. As per the allegations made, by the opposite party, the complainant has tempered, with seals of his meter and body thereof. 10. In our considered opinion, the mere tempering of the seals and body of the meter, does not amounts to commission of theft of electric energy until, any overt act has proved, to have been done by him to facilitate, the commission of theft of electric energy. As per remarks given in the checking report, actual load being drawn, by the complainant at the time of checking, was found, within sanctioned limit and direction was given, by the Executive Officer, to Sh. Narinder Kumar, J.E. to pack and seal, the meter of the complainant, removed from the house of the complainant, at the time of checking. In these circumstances, it is desirable, that meter removed, from house of the complainant, should have been got checked, in his presence from M.E. Lab., but no action is claimed, to have been taken, by the officials of the board. The theft of electric energy is a serious offence, which leads to serious consequences if established. As such onus is always heavy on the person who takes such plea. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on 1994(I) CPJ 74, H.S.E.B. Versus Krishan Dev, it has been held, by the Hon'ble Haryana State Commission, that it is well settled ad-age of the law, that mere suspicion cannot, take the place of proof and the conjectural ground, that the possibility of an attempt, to commit theft could be ruled out. As such, non Contd......6.... : 6 : compliance of above provisions, on their part is deficiency in service and raising demand of huge amount, from the complainant, because of which he has been suffered mental and physical agony, as such, the impugned notice, is liable to be set aside and the complainant is, entitled to seek compensation and costs. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and set aside the impugned notice, issued by the opposite party, vide Memo no. 652 dated 2.2.2009, raising payment of Rs. 26,676/-. The opposite party is also burdened, in the sum of Rs. 2000/-, on account of compensation and in the sum of Rs. 1000/- as costs, of filing the complaint, with further direction, that if complainant, had deposited, any amount, in terms of interim order, dated 28.1.2009, the same may be refunded, to him alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of deposit, till the date of payment. The compliance of this order, be made within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 12. 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: 25.05.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
