DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.199/26.11.2008 Decided on : 08.05.2009 Sh. Surinder Kumar S/o Sh. Sham lal, Sh.Lal Chand M.C. wali Gali, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. 2.The Sub Divisional Officer, City, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Ms.Devinder Kaur, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.K.C.Garg, 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 This complaint has been filed by Sh. Surinder Kumar son of Sh. Sham lal, a resident of Mansa, against Punjab State Electricity Board, (in short called the 'board'), through its Chairman and Sub Divisional Officer at Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), for setting aside impugned Memo dated 30.10.2008 and award of compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/- for physical and mental harassment on the averments, which may, briefly Contd.......2 : 2 : be described as under: 2. That he has secured electric connection bearing Account No. ST-39/355 from the opposite parties for domestic purposes and, has been regularly making payment of amount of electricity bills, drawn upon him. As such, he is consumer of electric energy under the opposite parties, who have served impugned notice vide Memo No.3000 dated 30.10.2008, raising demand of Rs.18,506/-, on the allegation of theft of electric energy on the basis of report given by the officials of the board on 23.10.2008 that M&T seals were found tampered with. It is submitted that impugned notice is illegal and liable to be set aside, because checking has not been done in the presence of the complainant and officials of the board had removed the meter in his absence. The complainant has never indulged in theft of electric energy. The officials of the board neither packed nor sealed the electric meter removed from his premises and no mischief on the part of the complainant, has been alleged by the Meter Readers of the board before issuance of the impugned notice. The electric meter, after removal, has not been got tested from the M.E. Lab., and mere tampering of seals does not amount to commission of theft of electric energy. Since the complainant, has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to raising of demand of huge amount, hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has concealed the material facts of checking of his electric connection on 23.10.2008 by the team led by Sh.R.K.Goyal, XEN (Enforcement), in his presence. The checking team found M&T seals of the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant, broken. The checking report was prepared in his presence at the spot, but he refused to append his signatures thereon and case pertains to theft, as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint; that he Contd........3 : 3 : has filed the complaint with malafide intention to harass the opposite parties by concocting false version and his complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs in the sum of Rs.5000/-. On merits, the factum of issuance of electric connection, in the name of the complainant, for domestic purposes, is not disputed alongwith the fact that he is consumer of electric energy. It is submitted that no amount is outstanding towards the complainant, except the amount demanded through the impugned notice. The allegations regarding raising of demand on account of commission of theft of electric energy by him are reiterated, as mentioned in the preliminary objections and it is submitted that after provisional assessment, amount of Rs.18,506/-, has been demanded through the impugned Memo served vide letter No.3000 dated 30.10.2008. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit, Exhibit C-1, copy of impugned notice Exhibit C-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered in evidence photocopy of checking report Ext.OP-1 and closed their 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. Learned counsel for the complainant, Ms.Devinder Kaur, Advocate, has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and written version and has prayed that impugned Memo be set aside and complainant be awarded compensation and costs, as prayed for. 7. On the other hand, Sh.K.C.Garg, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite parties, has submitted that complainant has not alleged any previous hostile animus towards the members of checking team, as such, officials of the board comprising the checking team, had no reason to Contd........4 : 4 : submit false report against him and to fabricate the checking report and deficiency in service cannot be assumed on the basis of affidavit of the complainant or due to any non compliance of the rules on the subject. Learned counsel urged that complaint, being abuse of process of the Forum, is liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, because contents of the affidavit of the complainant Ext.C-1, have gone uncontroverted, as the opposite parties have not tendered affidavit of any member of the checking team to controvert the contents of his affidavit. The copy of the checking report Ext.OP-1 furnished by them does not bear the signatures of the complainant or his representative. There is no remark on the checking report above the column meant for signatures of the consumer that he refused to append his signatures and refused to receive the copy thereof . There is nothing on record to hold that copy of the checking report was affixed at some conspicuous place in/outside the premises of the complainant in case he has refused to append his signatures on the checking report or to receive the copy thereof, such a recourse was to be adopted by the members of the checking team, as envisaged in Clause 3(e) of the Circular No.53/2006, issued by the board on the subject. The complainant has denied that he was present at the time of checking and the details of evidence gathered by the checking team are not mentioned in the copy of the checking report , which also does not bear the signatures of even Assessing Officer, as envisaged in Clause 3(d) of the above said circular, issued by the board on the subject. Moreover, notice has been served upon the complainant for payment of Rs.18,506/-, after provisional assessment and on the allegations of theft of electric energy by tampering with the M.E.seals of his meter. As per our opinion, tampering of seals does not amount to commission of theft of electric energy. As held above, there is non compliance of rules framed by the board on the subject, on the Contd........5 : 5 : part of the opposite parties. The factum of checking is also not free from suspicion. As such, we have come to the conclusion that, complainant cannot be burdened with amount demanded from him on the basis of impugned Memo Ext.C-2, which is apparently illegal and arbitrary, because theft of electric energy is a serious offence and may have serious consequences, if established. As such, onus was heavy on the opposite party to prove the said fact by leading cogent and convincing evidence, which they have failed to discharge. Therefore, deficiency in rendering service to the complainant is proved on the part of the opposite parties. As such, we are of the opinion that notice served upon the complainant by the opposite parties, raising demand of Rs.18,506/-, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Since the complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to raising of illegal demand, therefore, he is also entitled to payment of adequate amount on account of costs and compensation. 9. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and we set aside the impugned notice, Ext.C-2, served upon the complainant, vide letter No.3000 dated 30.10.2008 raising demand of Rs.18,506/-, and burden the opposite parties, in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation, and in the sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs of filing of instant complaint with further direction to refund the amount of Rs.6,000/-, if deposited, by the complainant in terms of the interim order dated 26.11.2008, with interest, at the rate of 9 percent, from the date of deposit, till the date of actual payment. The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 10. The copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 08.05.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
