DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.193/14.11.2008 Decided on : 27.02.2009 Sh.Surinder Pal S/o Sh.Hamir Singh resident of street adjoining B.D.O. office , Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Urban, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.K. Singla, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.Ashwani Kumar, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Sarat Chander, Member This complaint has been filed by Sh.Surinder Pal son of Sh.Hamir Singh resident of Mansa, against Punjab State Electricity Board, (in short called the 'board') through its Assistant Executive Engineer Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: 2. That the complainant, has got installed, electric connection bearing Account No.NB54/221 in his premises. He had been regularly making payment of amount of electricity bills,drawn by the board. As such, he is consumer, under the opposite party, who has served notice upon him Contd........2 : 2 : vide memo No.1197 dated 16.10.2008, raising demand of Rs.36.068/-, on account of theft of electricity. The said notice is illegal and void and is liable to be set aside, because the checking of the electric meter was not done in his presence and copy of the checking report has not been supplied to him. In the previous bill status of the electric meter has been described as 'O.K.' and meter has been installed outside the house of the complainant. As such, the question of tampering with the seals by the complainant does not arise. The meter installed in the house of the complainant has not been got checked from the M.E.lab, as such, he cannot be held to be guilty of commission of theft of electric energy. The meter reader of the board also visits the house of the complainant after every two months for the purpose of recording of the reading, but he has not made any such report to any authority of the board that complainant had tampered with the seals of his electric meter. Due to service of illegal demand upon the complainant , he has suffered physical and mental harassment, as such, there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party. At the end, a prayer, has been made that impugned notice be set aside and the opposite party be burdened in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, as compensation on account of physical and mental harassment and be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation. On being put to notice, the opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, has no cause of action and locus standi, to file the complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has failed to make payment of provisional assessment demanded through the impugned notice and to avail opportunity of being heard and to file objection within the stipulated period and the notice has been served upon him is as per the rules of the board on the subject complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that electric connection, referred to above, has been installed in the premises of the Contd........3 : 3 : complainant, but it is submitted that memo No.1197 dated 16.10.2008, raising demand of Rs.36,068/-, has been rightly issued and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is submitted that checking of the house of the complainant has been done in the presence of Gurwinder Sharma, who is his family member and he has affixed his signatures after understanding the contents of the checking report. It is also submitted that electric meter was installed inside the house of the complainant and direction was given to the officials of the board to instal the meter outside his house and it was found by Sh.Ajiab Singh, S.D.O. and Sh.Gursewak Singh, J.E. that complainant has tampered with the seals of his electric meter. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit, Exhibit C-1, and impugned notice Ext.C-2 before his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, Sh.Ajaib Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, and Sh.Gursewak Singh, Junior Engineer, furnished, their affidavits, Ext.OP-1 & Ext.OP-2, respectively, on behalf of the opposite party. Learned counsel for the opposite party also tendered in evidence, copies of documents, Ext.OP-3 & OP-4, before he closed the evidence, on their behalf. 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. At the outset learned counsel for the complainant Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and has argued that there is non compliance of the rules framed by the board on the part of its officials, as such, impugned notice is liable to be set aside and complainant is liable to make payment of compensation and costs, as prayed for by him in his complaint. Contd........4 : 4 : On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party Sh.Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate has reasserted the averments made in the written arguments to the effect that checking of the electric meter installed in the house of the complainant has been done in his presence. It is submitted that complainant has failed to file objection against the notice served upon him and to avail opportunity of being heard within the period stipulated therein. Learned counsel further submitted that complainant has even not deposited the amount of provisional assessment and checking has been done in the presence of member of his family who has appended his signatures admitting the contents of the checking report prepared at the spot by the officials of the board. Learned counsel argued that in his affidavit, complainant has not denied that Gurwinder Sharma, in whose presence checking has been done, is not member of his family, as such, there is no reason to distrust the report submitted by the officials of the board that complainant has committed the theft of electric energy by tampering with the seals of his electric meter merely because the same has been got checked from the M.E. Lab on the ground mentioned in the complaint. Learned counsel further submitted that complainant had not availed remedies open before him, as such, he is not entitled to seek indulgence of this Forum and complaint filed by him is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. Admittedly, electric connection bearing Account No. NB54 /221, has been installed in the premises of the complainant. It is also not disputed that complainant, had been regularly paying the amount of electricity bills drawn upon him by the board, before issuance of impugned notice, as such, he is 'consumer', qua the said electric connection, under the opposite party. It is also not disputed that notice Ext.C-2 dated 16.10.2008 has been served upon the complainant by the opposite party raising demand of Rs.36,068/- on account of theft of electric energy by tampering with the seals of his electric meter as reported by the officials of the board Contd........5 : 5 : who conducted the checking in the presence of Sh.Gurwinder Sharma. The complainant in his affidavit Ext.C-1 has not denied the fact that Gurwinder Sharma is not member of his family, but fact remains that checking has not been done in the presence of the complainant. The complainant has also not produced any other document like Ration Card or voters list to falsify the version of the opposite party that Gurwinder Sharma is not member of his family. On the other hand the witnesses of the opposite party Sh.Ajaib Singh, SDO and Sh.Gursewak Singh, J.E. who has conducted the checking has stated on solemn affirmation in their affidavits that Gurwinder Sharma is family member of the complainant and he has affixed his signatures on the checking report giving his consent about its contents. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the contents of the affidavits of above mentioned officials of the board cannot be rejected by us. The copy of the checking report Ext.OP-3 bears the signatures of the representatives of the complainant. It is also mentioned therein that copy of the checking report was supplied to him by the officials who conducted the checking at the spot. As mentioned in the copy of checking report, electric meter was earlier installed inside the house of the complainant and after removal thereof in the presence of his representative, it was ordered to be installed outside his house and the officials of the checking team found both the seals affixed thereon tampered with. The assessing authority has made provisional assessment on account of theft of electric energy in the sum of Rs.36,068/- agreeing with the report submitted by the officials of the board. Since the representative of consumer has admitted the factum of tampering with the seals affixed on the electric meter, therefore, no formal proof is required to prove commission of theft of electric energy by tampering with the seals of the electric meter installed inside his house and action taken by the officials of the checking staff cannot be said tobe arbitrary or not sustainable especially when complainant has not made any allegation against them which might have prompt them to give a false Contd........6 : 6 : report against him. The complainant has withheld the previous bills in his possession showing that status of electric meter installed in his house was reported 'O.K.' by the officials of the board. Even if it be accepted for the sake of discussion that status of the electric meter was reported 'O.K.' in the previous bill and meter reader of the board had not reported theft of electric energy by the complainant prior to the date of checking, does not mean that members of the checking staff have concocted a false version and submitted false report against him. In the light of the above discussion, we have no option but to hold that complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party or that notice served upon him in terms of provisional assessment made by the assessing officer raising demand of Rs.36,068/- is arbitrary and not sustainable. As per contents of impugned notice Ext.C-2, the complainant was directed to appear for personal hearing within 7 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the notice and to file objection against the checking report, if any, but he has failed to avail the opportunities afforded to him. As such, the complainant has no reason to grumble even on that score and no ground is made out for setting aside the notice served upon the complainant in accordance with the factual position and the rules of the board or to direct the opposite party to make him payment on account of compensation for physical and mental harassment and costs incurred by him for filing the instant complaint. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint and leave the parties to bear their own costs. 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: 27.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
