DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC.No.276 of 13-06-2011 Decided on 30-09-2011
Azadinder Singh, aged about 43 years son of Sh. Sher Singh, Resident of Mehraj Basti, Rampura Phul. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., City Sub Division, Rampura Phul.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. Lovnish Garg, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holder of domestic electric connection No.MB33/433. He has been paying the electricity bills so issued by the opposite parties from time to time and nothing was due against him. The complainant got a memo No.836 dated 17.05.2011 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.17,484/- on the basis of ME Lab report dated 09.05.2011 wherein it has been mentioned that ME seals and meter body were found tampered. The ME seals were tampered by opening the meter body. It was also found that by tampering the counter, the consumption was being controlled. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that he neither committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly; the meter was neither removed in the presence of the complainant nor it was packed and sealed as per rules; his signatures were not obtained at the time of removal of the meter; the condition of the meter was never shown to the complainant neither at the time of installation nor at the time of removal; the said memo has been raised without any basis; the checking in the ME Lab was neither conducted in the presence of the complainant nor the checking report was sent to the complainant; no notice from the ME Lab was ever issued to the complainant for checking of the removed meter in the ME Lab; the name of the checking officer has not been mentioned in the said memo; the removed meter was installed in the public street and the complainant has no control on the working of the removed meter; the opposite parties forcibly and illegally got deposited the amount of Rs.17,484/- vide receipt No.453 dated 27.05.2011 and Rs.9,000/- vide receipt No.512 on 08.06.2011 under the threat of Police action. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to quash the memo No.836 dated 17.05.2011 and to refund the amount of Rs.17,484/- and Rs.9,000/- which the opposite parties have got deposited from him alongwith interest, cost and compensation. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant was present at the time of removal of the meter and if the complainant was not present at that time, how he came to know that the meter was not packed and sealed as per rules. The meter was checked in the ME Lab with the consent of the representative of the complainant who signed the consent memo and thereafter, the meter was checked in the ME Lab and found that the ME seals and counter of the meter were tampered. The amount in question has been raised as per rules and regulations of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd which is calculated as per LxDxHxF formula and the name of the officer who checked the meter, is mentioned in the memo No.836 dated 17.05.2011. After checking the meter in the ME Lab, the provisional order of assessment was sent to the complainant and the ME Lab report is sufficient evidence of theft committed by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has voluntarily deposited the amount vide receipt No.453 dated 27.05.2011 and Rs.9,000/- vide receipt No.512 dated 08.06.2011. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The allegation of the complainant is that his electric meter was not removed in his presence, after removal it was neither packed nor sealed in his presence, nor his signatures were obtained. The checking, if any, in the M.E. Lab was never made in his presence. The representative who has signed the letter Ex. R-4 , as alleged by the opposite parties, is not known to him. Hence, he is not liable to pay any demand raised by the opposite parties on the basis of said checking report. On the other hand, the version of the opposite parties is that they have followed all their rules and regulations. The electric meter of the complainant after removal, was duly packed and sealed. The meter was checked in the M.E. Lab in the absence of the complainant as his representative has submitted a letter with the opposite parties that complainant/ his representative could not visit the M.E Lab due to some domestic reasons. The meter was checked in M.E. Lab vide M.E. Lab report vide Ex. R-2 whereby it was found that after tampering with the M.E. seals and by opening the meter body, the complainant was controlling the consumption of electricity, hence it was a case theft of electricity. On the basis of said M.E. Lab report the memo in question was issued to the complainant which was legal and valid. The opposite parties have pleaded that after removal of the meter of the complainant, it was duly packed in the cardboard box, sealed, but a perusal of record reveals that no copy of seal signed by the officials of the opposite parties as well as the complainant has been produced on file to show that actually the meter was duly packed and sealed. The opposite parties have not even mentioned the date of removal of the meter in their written reply. However, the complainant has mentioned in para 4 (b) of his complaint that his meter was removed in the month of December, 2010. The opposite parties have not even produced on file a copy of Meter Change Order to ascertain the fact regarding date of removal of meter.
A perusal of M.E. Lab report Ex. R-2 reveals that paper seal No. 23/047 dated 6-1-2011 has been mentioned in it. When no copy of seal has been produced on file, it cannot be believed that actually the meter of the complainant was packed and sealed. As per the version of the complainant his electric meter was removed in month of December, 2010. As per M.E. Lab report Ex. R-2, the meter was checked in the M.E. on 09-05-2011. Hence, the electric meter of the complainant has been sent to M.E. Lab after expiry of the period of five months whereas as per Commercial Circular No. 22/99 of the opposite parties, they are to check the meter in the M.E. Lab as under :- “....Sub : Packing of defective meters in sealed cardboard boxes In continuation of Commercial Circular No. 8/99 dated 2.3.1999. As per SM1-104, meters on removal are to be sent to M.E. Laboratory within a maximum period of 15 days. Difficulties have been reported in complying with these instructions because M.E. Laboratories have fixed only one day in a month for receiving such meters from one sub division. It has, therefore, now been decided that the removed meters against any Meter Change Order be sent to M.E. Laboratory in the sealed card board boxes duly signed by the concerned PSEB Officer/Official and the consumer or his representative within a period of 15 to 30 days. SM1-104 may be considered as amended to the above extent.”
As discussed above, the copy of the seal and MCO have not been produced on file. If the meter of the complainant would have been packed and sealed while effecting the M.C.O. then seal number of the packed meter should have been mentioned on the MCO, which has also not been produced on file. Hence, it cannot be believed that meter was actually packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant. A perusal of M.E. Lab checking report Ex. R-2 reveals that meter of the complainant was checked in the M.E. Lab on 09-05-2011 whereas as per version of the complainant meter was removed in the month of December, 2010. Hence, it was checked after five months from the date of removal. When the meter was not packed and sealed, it is not known that in which condition and under whose custody the meter was lying for five months. As per M.E. Lab report the M.E. seals of the meter were found tampered with and the officials of the M.E. Lab held that after tampering with the M.E. seals and meter body of the meter, the consumption was controlled in unauthorized manner. When the meter remained unsealed for five months, it is not known that under which condition it remained and how the M.E. seals of the meter tampered with. Moreover, the opposite parties have not followed their own rules and regulations as mentioned in the the aforesaid circular. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the memo in question without any basis and the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount paid by him under threat of police. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and the memo No. 836 dated 17-05-2011 Ex. R-1 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 17484/- and Rs. 9,000/- deposited by the complainant vide receipts Ex. C-7 and Ex. C-6 respectively.
The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, the interest @ 9% will yield on the amount of Rs. 26,484/- till realisation.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced : 30-09-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
