BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 717 of 26.8.2010 

                                                Decided on:          21.9.2011

Bhupinder Singh son of Rai Singh, resident of village Gagrauli, PO Bhankher, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Managing Director.

2.                 S.D.O.Devigarh Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Devigarh, Tehsil & District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Anand Puri, Advocate

For opposite parties:     None

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is a consumer of the domestic electricity connection bearing account No.P24GR-190766M having a sanctioned load of 3.62KW. The complainant has been paying the charges of the electricity regularly and nothing was due and outstanding against the complainant.

2.       The officials of the ops had removed the electricity meter on 6.8.2010 from the house of the complainant in his absence and connected the supply directly from the pole of the electricity.

3.       It is further averred that the ops issued memo no.645 dated 18.8.2010 having raised the demand of Rs.27006/- and further raised the demand of Rs.12000/- as compounding fee alleging that both M&T seals of the meter were tampered and it was a case of theft of the energy.

4.       The complainant has described the said demand to be illegal, null and void as he had never committed any theft of the energy. No checking of the electricity connection was made in the presence of the complainant or any resident of the village. The status of the meter was shown as ‘O’ since long. Even in the bill dated 31.7.2010 the status of the meter was noted as ‘N’ meaning thereby that the reading was not taken.

5.       It is also averred that the meter was not packed in a card board box nor the same was got checked from the M.E.Lab.Even the complainant was  not informed about the same. Therefore, the ops could not raise any demand. No opportunity of being heard was given to the complainant.

6.       The complainant approached the ops and requested to withdraw the memo dated 18.8.2010 but they threatened to recover the amount forcibly. Accordingly, the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to declare the demand to be illegal, null and void and to restrain the ops from recovering the same; to pay him Rs.50000/- by way o compensation for the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops and to restore the supply of the electricity connection.

7.       On notice, ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked on 6.8.2010 as per entry no.1133 made on page no.34 of the checking register and both the M&T seals were found tampered while MCB and MTC seals were found missing. The checking was conduced in the presence of the complainant who refused to sign the checking report. The meter of the complainant was removed and packed in a card board box duly sealed.

8.       It is further averred that on the basis of the checking report provisional order of assessment under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 was issued vide no.645 dated 18.8.2010 having raised the demand of Rs.27006/-.The complainant failed to file any objections against order of provisional assessment. The amount is legally recoverable. After denouncing the other averments of the complainant, going against them, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

9.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence, Ex.C1 his sworn affidavit, alongwith the documents Exs.C2 to C7 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

10.     On the other hand, on behalf of the ops their learned counsel produced in evidence Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit Ex.R1 of Balkar Singh,AE of op no.2,Ex.R2 the sworn affidavit of JE Amrinder Singh of op no.2 alongwith documents,Exs.R3 to R5 and closed their evidence.

10.     The  parties   filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the complainant none having appeared on behalf of the op and gone through the evidence on record.

11.     Ex.R3, is the copy of the checking report dated 6.8.2010 as got proved by the ops with the assistance of the sworn affidavit,Ex.R1 of AE Balkar Singh and Ex.R2 of JE Amrinder Singh of op no.2 who had conducted the checking of the electricity connection of the complainant on 6.8.2010.As per the checking report,Ex.R3, both ME seals and cover of the meter were found tampered. The meter was packed in a card board box in the presence of the consumer. The consumer is reported to have refused to sign the checking report.

12.     It is no where the plea taken up by the ops that the meter removed from the site was sent to the M.E.Lab nor it is averred that the complainant was ever informed about the date and the time regarding the checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab.

13.     The ops have produced in evidence,Ex.R4, the photo copy of the letter no.1593 dated 14.12.2010 written by op no.2 to the complainant having informed him that the meter removed from the site will be sent to the M.E.Lab on 24.12.2010 for being checked at 11and that he should ensure his presence. The letter is shown to have been sent through registered post. No postal receipt is produced in evidence by the ops. This is said to be the second notice. No copy of the previous notice is produced on file.

14.     Apparently the letter,Ex.R4, can be said to have been manipulated by the ops at the stage of the evidence otherwise it must have found mention in the written statement.

15.     The fact of the matter is that op no.2 failed to get the meter removed from the site checked by the M.E.Lab in order to find out the defect in the working of the same. In the case of the citation HSWEB( Now HVPN) and others Versus Bhushan Lal 2007(1)CLT 114, the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory,Chandigarh observed ,

“ the allegation of appellants is that the premises of respondent were checked on 13.7.1998 by the raiding party and on checking found that both M&T seals were tampered with and terminal seal was missing. Now the question arises whether from the mere fact that M&T seals were tampered with and terminal seal was missing, a case of theft of energy is made out. The answer is certainly not. It was incumbent upon on the raiding party to install a parallel meter and should have noted difference in the energy consumed in both meters. Having not done so from the meter fact that seals were tampered with, it can not be said that theft of energy had been committed. The meter was not got checked from M&T laboratory that it had been running slow or was not running properly. In the absence of such evidence it can not be held that complainant had committed theft of energy”.

16.     Not only that the ops failed to get the electricity meter of the complainant checked by the M.E.Lab, there is no evidence to have been led by the ops to show that the complainant indulged in theft of the energy. They have not produced on file the bill of the energy of the corresponding period of the previous year. Consequently, we find that the complainant could not be burdened with the liability to pay the amount of the order of provisional assessment without there being conclusive evidence that he was indulging in theft of the energy and consequently we accept the complaint and quash the demand raised by the ops vide order of provisional assessment Ex.C2 no.645 dated 18.8.2010.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the complaint with costs assessed at Rs.5000/- to be paid by the ops to the complainant within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order. 50% amount of the order of assessment if deposited by the complainant in compliance with the order dated 27.8.2010 passed by the Forum whereby the disconnection of the supply to the electricity connection of the complainant was stayed shall be refunded/adjusted in the future bills.

Pronounced.

Dated:21.9.2011

                                       Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                      Member                            President