PSEB V/S Vasdev Garg - Consumer Court Case

Punjab

Mansa

CC/08/150

Vasdev Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSEB - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder Kumar Sharma

08 Apr 2009

ORDER

consumer forum mansa
consumer forum mansa
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/150

Vasdev Garg						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
PSEB						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. Neena Rani Gupta 2. Sh Sarat Chander

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.150/24.09.2008 Decided on : 08.04.2009 Sh.Vasdev Garg S/o Sh. Babu Ram, Mitwa Street, Water Works Road, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. 2.Sub Divisional Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, City, Sub Urban, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. N.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.P.K.Jindal, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member Sh.Vasdev Garg (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman and Sub Divisional Engineer (hereinafter called as opposite Parties) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts of this complaint are that the complainant had obtained electric connection in his house bearing Account No.WR35/735 for domestic purposes. The complainant had been paying the electricity consumption charges from time to time and nothing is outstanding against him, as such, he is the consumer of the opposite parties. The Ops have served notice, vide letter No. 2100 dated 10.9.2008 , upon him raising Contd........2 : 2 : demand of Rs.36846/-, on the allegations that upon checking the premises of the complainant on 8.9.2008, the M&T seals of the electric meter had been tampered with and load was found to be 5.39 KW. Neither the complainant has tampered with the M&T seals of his electric meter, nor he is responsible for the tampering thereof by any outsider, because the meter was installed outside his house. The complainant, in reply to the above notice, has appraised the OPs that the electric meter has been removed by them in h his absence and that of his family members, who are usually away from house from 9 am to 5 pm on every working day. The OPs have never checked the house of the complainant and the question of calculating the load of the house of the complainant, from outside, without checking, does not arise. Subsequently, the OPs again sent letter No.2214 dated 212.9.2008 stating therein that the complainant was present at the time of checking, but left thereafter, and his son, viz Bobby, refused to sign the checking report. The premises of the complainant were again checked on 19.9.2008 in the presence of the complainant and found that light points were covered with sheets. The demand of Rs.36846/- has been raised on the basis of load factor. Since the complainant has decreased the electric load many years ago to control the expenses of electricity, as such the above demand is illegal and liable to be set aside. The opposite parties were thus stated to be deficient in service. The complainant, has also suffered, mental and physical harassment, due to service of illegal notice by the opposite parties and he is further entitled, to compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. Hence this complaint. The OPs in their written version have taken certain legal objections and challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that it being a case of theft of energy, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The premises of the complainant were checked on 6.9.2008 by the SDO,City and other staff in the presence of Babbu Garg, the son of the complainant and it was found Contd........3 : 3 : that both the M&T seals were tampered with and he was found indulging in theft of electric energy. The sanctioned load of the complainant was 1.96 KW, but he was found using 5.393 KW load. The Son of the complainant named above refused to append his signatures on the report prepared by the checking staff at the spot. Hence the demand of Rs.36846/-, has been raised which includes Rs.7000/- on account of excess load; Rs.200/- as price of the meter and the remaining amount on account of theft of electric energy. The meter was duly removed, packed and sealed in a card board box at the spot. On merits, it was admitted that the electric connection in question has been installed in the name of the complainant. The electric connection was again checked on 19.9.2008 in the presence of the complainant on his request. It was found that the complainant had covered the light points with plain sheets. It was denied that the demand was illegal and the OPs were deficient in service towards the complainant The remaining allegations were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has accordingly been made. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that checking report does not bear the signatures of the complainant and its copy has not been supplied to him and manner of tampering with the electric meter has also not been disclosed in the notice and they have not produced on record calculation sheet showing the criteria on the basis of which demand has been raised. Report of M.E. Lab has not been secured, as such, plea of the OPs cannot be accepted that complainant has committed theft of electric energy. Since the electric connection is installed outside the house of the complainant, there was every possibility of tampering with the same and the responsibility of maintenance of Contd........4 : 4 : the electric meter lies with the officials of the OPs, as such, impugned notice is liable to be set aside and he is liable for the amounts prayed for in the complaint. Learned counsel for the Ops has submitted that complainant has admitted the breaking of seals in letter Ext.OP-4 and electric meter was checked in his presence and first notice was served upon him, but on the basis of representation of the complainant, officials of the OP again visited his house for checking of the electric load in his presence, but he has covered the electric points with sheets making it impossible to check the load again. The sanctioned load of the electric meter was 1.96 KW, but actual load was found to be 5.393 KW and details of the amount has been given in the calculation sheet. Complainant has failed to avail opportunity of being hears afforded by the Ops or to file objection against the provisional assessment. Therefore, the complainant has no reason to grumble that he is a victim of any arbitrary action of the Ops and his complaint deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs. Admittedly, electric connection has been obtained by the complainant and is installed in his house. As per version of the Ops, both the M&T seals of the electric meter were found tampered with. The mere tempering of the seals does not amount to theft of electric energy. Moreover, it is stated in the notice Ext.OP-3 that electric meter was removed and packed by the members of the checking staff, but no report of M.E. Lab has been obtained to prove even the tampering with the M&T seals. The checking report Ext.OP-5 bears the signatures of one Bobby Garg and he has refused to append his signatures and receive the copy of the report. As such, the checking has not been done in the presence of the consumer and manner in which complainant has tampered with the M&T seals is not mentioned. There is no evidence that copy of the checking report, was supplied either to the son of the complainant or sent through registered post to the complainant, which is mandatory requirement under Contd........5 : 5 : the rules framed by the board. As per Clause 3(e) of the Circular No.53/2006, issued by the board on the subject, the opposite parties are supposed to send the copy of the checking report to the consumer subsequently by post in case checking has been done in his absence, but the opposite parties have not produced any such record showing that copy of the checking report was sent to the complainant through registered post or by any other means. The report does not bear 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 above said circular issued by the board on the subject. It appears that inference of theft has been drawn by the officials of the checking team because his actual load detected on the basis of electric lamps, fans, plugs, power plugs and motor was found much more than the sanctioned load. The officials of the board, have failed to comply with the above said provisions of the board for the reasons best known to them. The mere fact that complainant has failed to avail opportunity afforded to him by the competent authority or failed to file objections, does not amount to act of acquiesce on his part. The Ops have produced on record the copy of letter dated 16.9.2008 Ext.OP-4 written by the complainant after receipt of notice wherein he has prayed for rechecking of his electric load and that board has launched a special scheme for declaration of excess load by the consumers during the period 1.9.2008 to 30.9.2008, as such, no amount can be claimed even on that score. As per affidavit Ext.OP-1 furnished by Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh, SDO of the board, complainant has covered the light points by use of plain sheets when the officials of the OP visited his house in terms of his representation to recheck the load. This part of his affidavit has gone uncontroverted, as the complainant has not led any evidence to the contrary. The Ops have demanded a sum of Rs.7000/- on account of Contd........6 : 6 : excess load and a sum of Rs.320/- as costs of new electric meter. In the given circumstances, the complainant cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the amount of excess load and costs of electric meter. For the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the conclusion that we partly accept the complaint and waive off the amount demanded by the opposite parties on account of theft of electric energy. However, the complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.7320/- on account of excess load and costs of electric meter. The said amount be deposited by the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the remaining amount out of Rs.12,000/-, if deposited, in terms of interim order dated 24.9.2008 be adjusted against his future bills. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left 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 08.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.150/24.09.2008 Decided on : 08.04.2009 Sh.Vasdev Garg S/o Sh. Babu Ram, Mitwa Street, Water Works Road, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. 2.Sub Divisional Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, City, Sub Urban, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. N.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.P.K.Jindal, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member Sh.Vasdev Garg (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman and Sub Divisional Engineer (hereinafter called as opposite Parties) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts of this complaint are that the complainant had obtained electric connection in his house bearing Account No.WR35/735 for domestic purposes. The complainant had been paying the electricity consumption charges from time to time and nothing is outstanding against him, as such, he is the consumer of the opposite parties. The Ops have served notice, vide letter No. 2100 dated 10.9.2008 , upon him raising Contd........2 : 2 : demand of Rs.36846/-, on the allegations that upon checking the premises of the complainant on 8.9.2008, the M&T seals of the electric meter had been tampered with and load was found to be 5.39 KW. Neither the complainant has tampered with the M&T seals of his electric meter, nor he is responsible for the tampering thereof by any outsider, because the meter was installed outside his house. The complainant, in reply to the above notice, has appraised the OPs that the electric meter has been removed by them in h his absence and that of his family members, who are usually away from house from 9 am to 5 pm on every working day. The OPs have never checked the house of the complainant and the question of calculating the load of the house of the complainant, from outside, without checking, does not arise. Subsequently, the OPs again sent letter No.2214 dated 212.9.2008 stating therein that the complainant was present at the time of checking, but left thereafter, and his son, viz Bobby, refused to sign the checking report. The premises of the complainant were again checked on 19.9.2008 in the presence of the complainant and found that light points were covered with sheets. The demand of Rs.36846/- has been raised on the basis of load factor. Since the complainant has decreased the electric load many years ago to control the expenses of electricity, as such the above demand is illegal and liable to be set aside. The opposite parties were thus stated to be deficient in service. The complainant, has also suffered, mental and physical harassment, due to service of illegal notice by the opposite parties and he is further entitled, to compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. Hence this complaint. The OPs in their written version have taken certain legal objections and challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that it being a case of theft of energy, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The premises of the complainant were checked on 6.9.2008 by the SDO,City and other staff in the presence of Babbu Garg, the son of the complainant and it was found Contd........3 : 3 : that both the M&T seals were tampered with and he was found indulging in theft of electric energy. The sanctioned load of the complainant was 1.96 KW, but he was found using 5.393 KW load. The Son of the complainant named above refused to append his signatures on the report prepared by the checking staff at the spot. Hence the demand of Rs.36846/-, has been raised which includes Rs.7000/- on account of excess load; Rs.200/- as price of the meter and the remaining amount on account of theft of electric energy. The meter was duly removed, packed and sealed in a card board box at the spot. On merits, it was admitted that the electric connection in question has been installed in the name of the complainant. The electric connection was again checked on 19.9.2008 in the presence of the complainant on his request. It was found that the complainant had covered the light points with plain sheets. It was denied that the demand was illegal and the OPs were deficient in service towards the complainant The remaining allegations were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has accordingly been made. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that checking report does not bear the signatures of the complainant and its copy has not been supplied to him and manner of tampering with the electric meter has also not been disclosed in the notice and they have not produced on record calculation sheet showing the criteria on the basis of which demand has been raised. Report of M.E. Lab has not been secured, as such, plea of the OPs cannot be accepted that complainant has committed theft of electric energy. Since the electric connection is installed outside the house of the complainant, there was every possibility of tampering with the same and the responsibility of maintenance of Contd........4 : 4 : the electric meter lies with the officials of the OPs, as such, impugned notice is liable to be set aside and he is liable for the amounts prayed for in the complaint. Learned counsel for the Ops has submitted that complainant has admitted the breaking of seals in letter Ext.OP-4 and electric meter was checked in his presence and first notice was served upon him, but on the basis of representation of the complainant, officials of the OP again visited his house for checking of the electric load in his presence, but he has covered the electric points with sheets making it impossible to check the load again. The sanctioned load of the electric meter was 1.96 KW, but actual load was found to be 5.393 KW and details of the amount has been given in the calculation sheet. Complainant has failed to avail opportunity of being hears afforded by the Ops or to file objection against the provisional assessment. Therefore, the complainant has no reason to grumble that he is a victim of any arbitrary action of the Ops and his complaint deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs. Admittedly, electric connection has been obtained by the complainant and is installed in his house. As per version of the Ops, both the M&T seals of the electric meter were found tampered with. The mere tempering of the seals does not amount to theft of electric energy. Moreover, it is stated in the notice Ext.OP-3 that electric meter was removed and packed by the members of the checking staff, but no report of M.E. Lab has been obtained to prove even the tampering with the M&T seals. The checking report Ext.OP-5 bears the signatures of one Bobby Garg and he has refused to append his signatures and receive the copy of the report. As such, the checking has not been done in the presence of the consumer and manner in which complainant has tampered with the M&T seals is not mentioned. There is no evidence that copy of the checking report, was supplied either to the son of the complainant or sent through registered post to the complainant, which is mandatory requirement under Contd........5 : 5 : the rules framed by the board. As per Clause 3(e) of the Circular No.53/2006, issued by the board on the subject, the opposite parties are supposed to send the copy of the checking report to the consumer subsequently by post in case checking has been done in his absence, but the opposite parties have not produced any such record showing that copy of the checking report was sent to the complainant through registered post or by any other means. The report does not bear 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 above said circular issued by the board on the subject. It appears that inference of theft has been drawn by the officials of the checking team because his actual load detected on the basis of electric lamps, fans, plugs, power plugs and motor was found much more than the sanctioned load. The officials of the board, have failed to comply with the above said provisions of the board for the reasons best known to them. The mere fact that complainant has failed to avail opportunity afforded to him by the competent authority or failed to file objections, does not amount to act of acquiesce on his part. The Ops have produced on record the copy of letter dated 16.9.2008 Ext.OP-4 written by the complainant after receipt of notice wherein he has prayed for rechecking of his electric load and that board has launched a special scheme for declaration of excess load by the consumers during the period 1.9.2008 to 30.9.2008, as such, no amount can be claimed even on that score. As per affidavit Ext.OP-1 furnished by Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh, SDO of the board, complainant has covered the light points by use of plain sheets when the officials of the OP visited his house in terms of his representation to recheck the load. This part of his affidavit has gone uncontroverted, as the complainant has not led any evidence to the contrary. The Ops have demanded a sum of Rs.7000/- on account of Contd........6 : 6 : excess load and a sum of Rs.320/- as costs of new electric meter. In the given circumstances, the complainant cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the amount of excess load and costs of electric meter. For the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the conclusion that we partly accept the complaint and waive off the amount demanded by the opposite parties on account of theft of electric energy. However, the complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.7320/- on account of excess load and costs of electric meter. The said amount be deposited by the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the remaining amount out of Rs.12,000/-, if deposited, in terms of interim order dated 24.9.2008 be adjusted against his future bills. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left 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 08.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.

......................Neena Rani Gupta
......................Sh Sarat Chander