DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No. 30/10.2.2009 Decided on : 8.6.2009 Sh. Ved Parkash son of Sh. Prem Chand, resident of Sant Ram Street, 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.V.K. Singla, 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. Ved Parkash, son of Sh. Prem Chand, a resident of Sant Ram Street, 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 impugned Notice served vide Memo No. 243 dated 24.1.2009, issued by the opposite party, raising demand of Rs. 18476/-and for payment of compensation, in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of the filing of the complaint. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant, is as under:- 2. That complainant, has secured electric connection, in his name, bearing Account No. SR-18/277, from the opposite party, for consumption of electric energy, for domestic purpose. Since the date of installation of electric connection, he has been continuously making payment of, electricity Contd...2... : 2 : bills, drawn upon him, by the opposite party. He has neither tempered with any part of his meter nor he ever indulged, in commission of theft of electric energy, but the opposite party, served notice upon him, vide his office Memo No. 243 dated 24.1.2009, raising demand of Rs. 18,476/-, on the allegations, that he was found, committing theft of electric energy, by tempering with the seals of his meter and chamber thereof. The meter readers of the board, visit the premises of the complainant, where electric meter is installed, every month, but they have never reported, any such act on his part. The opposite party has also not got the electric meter removed, from the premises, of the complainant, checked from the M.E. Lab. The complainant has been subjected to, mental and physical harassment, due to service of illegal notice, upon him and opposite party is deficient in providing services. Hence the complaint. 3. On being put to notice, the opposite parties filed, written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that he has not approached this Forum, with clean hands ,as he has suppressed the factum of checking of electric meter, installed in his premises on 22.1.2009 by Sh. R.K. Goel, Executive Engineer (Enforcement), Bathinda and other officials of the board, in the presence of his representative Sh. Gora Lal and that they found ME seals, tempered with and chamber opened; that the case pertains to commission of theft. of electric energy, as such this Forum has no jurisdiction. to entertain and try the same; that the complainant has no locus standi, to file the complaint, which being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed, with compensatory costs of Rs. 5,000/-. On merit, the factum of the issuance of the electric connection, in the name of the complainant, is not disputed alongwith the fact, that he is consumer of electric energy, under the opposite party. The averments made in the preliminary objections, that regarding checking of electric meter, installed in the premises of the complainant, by the checking team of the board, have been reiterated and it is submitted, that the representative of the complainant, named above had appended his signatures on the checking Contd...3... : 3 : report, prepared at the spot, admitting the contents thereof and demand through the impugned memo has been raised, after provisional assessment, by the competent authority. It is also submitted, that the complainant is liable to, make payment of amount, demanded through impugned notice. It is denied, that there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party. It is also submitted, that the meter readers of the board, note down the reading of the electric meters in routine, as such notice cannot be termed as illegal. 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, tendered his affidavit and copy of impugned notice, Ext. C-1 to C-2 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party, tendered in evidence, affidavits of Sh. Ajaib Singh(SDO), and Sh. R.K. Goel, Executive Engineer(Enforcement), Ext. OP-1 to OP-2 and closed his evidence after tendering copies of documents, Ext. OP-3 to OP-4. 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 the identity of the person, who affixed his signatures, as representative of the complainant, on checking report, has not been disclosed and details of evidence gathered at the time of checking are not found incorporated, in the said document. Learned counsel has argued, that the checking has not been done, in the presence of the complainant and the opposite party has not secured, the report of M.E. Lab., within the stipulated period mentioned in the manual of the board, as such inference cannot be drawn especially, when checking has not been done, in the presence of the complainant. Learned counsel has further argued, that opposite party, has not brought on record, any document regarding supply of copy of checking report or affixed of copy on his premises. Learned Contd..4.... : 4 : counsel has submitted that in case the complainant was not present, at the time of checking report and his representative had refused, to receive the copy of checking report, then the same should have been affixed, on the premises of the consumer and copy thereof should have been sent to him subsequently, through post but no such action has been taken by the opposite party, as such service of impugned notice raising demand of huge amount is deficiency in service and being illegal, is liable to be, set aside and the complainant is not entitled, to payment of compensation and costs, as prayed for, in the complaint. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party, Sh. V.K. Singla, Advocate has submitted, that electric meter installed, in the presmies of the complainant, has not been checked, by Senior Executive Engineer of the board, as evident from his affidavit, tendered in evidence and and representative of the complainant, named in the written version, had affixed his signatures, on checking report, after understanding the contents, as such factum of checking, cannot be said to be doubtful, just on the strength of the affidavit of, the complainant or due to omission on the part of the opposite party, to get the meter tested, from M.E. Lab. Learned counsel has argued, that impugned notice has been, served upon the complainant, after provisional assessment, as per rules on the subject, but he has failed, to avail the opportunity of being heard or to file objections, within the period stipulated therein, as such, he has no reason, to grumble and claim deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party and for payment of compensation and costs. Learned counsel has urged, that the complaint, being false and vexatious, is liable, to be dismissed, with compensatory costs. 8. As per the admitted facts, electric connection, bearing Account No. SR18/277, has been installed, in the premises of the complainant, for consumption of electric energy by him, for domestic purposes. There is also no dispute, that no amount is outstanding, against the complainant, except the amount demanded, through the impugned notice, by the opposite Contd...5... : 5 : party and that he is consumer of electric energy under them. In support of averments, made in the complaint, the complainant has tendered, his duly sworn affidavit Ext. C-1, whereas Sh. R.K. Goel, Executive Engineer(Enforcement), Bathinda of the board, has reiterated the allegations, made in the written version, regarding tempering of seals and chamber of electric meter, in question, in the presence of Sh. Gora Lal. However, the said senior officer of the board, has not disclosed the identity, of the said representative of the complainant, whose parentage address and relationship with the complainant, are also not mentioned, in the copy of checking report, Ext. OP-3. The checking of the electric connection, as per Sh. R.K. Goel, Executive Engineer (Enforcement), has not been done, in the presence of the complainant. As such it was incumbent upon him and other members of the board, to mention the details of evidence, gathered by them, about factum of theft as envisaged in Clause 3(d) of the above said circular, issued by the board on the subject. As such, we are of the concluded opinion, that factum of checking is not free from suspicion. There is no proof of affixation of copy on premises of complainant or supply thereof to the complainant through registered post as required vide Clause 3(e) of the above said circular. As such, there is also non compliance of above said provisions, contained in the circular, issued by the board on the subject on the part of its officials, who found members of the checking team. We are also of the opinion, that mere tempering of seals of the meter or chamber thereon, does not amount to, commission of theft of electric energy, until it is established by any cogent and convincing evidence, that any further act is also done, by the consumer, inside the body of the meter, to facilitate him, to commit the theft of electric energy. The opposite party has not secured, the report of M.E. Lab., within the period stipulated, as per regulations contained in the manual of the board. In our opinion theft of electric energy is serious offence, which if established, may lead, to serious consequences, therefore, complainant cannot be said, to be caught committing theft of electric energy, by the members of the checking team, on the date alleged, Contd...6... : 6 : by the opposite party. 9. In the light of above discussion, we have come to the conclusion, that impugned notice, is not sustainable and there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party, in raising of illegal demand because of which, the complainant has been subject to, mental and physical harassment and to incur avoidable expenses, for filing of the instant complaint. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and set aside the impugned Memo dated 24.1.2009, issued by the opposite party, raising payment of Rs. 18,476/-. 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 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: 08.06.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.unVao
