DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.189 of 09-05-2011 Decided on 03-08-2011
Darshan Singh, aged about 48 years, son of Sh. Gurdial Singh, Resident of village Kothe Chhapri Wale, Tehsil and District Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala, through its M.D. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Goniana, District Bathinda through its SDO.
......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. O.P. Mehta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. Abhey Singla, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. 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 holding domestic electric connection bearing A/c No.B93KC 600175 X. Previously, the control of supply of power to village Kothe Chhapri Wale was under the control of Sub Division, Sub Urban, Gidderbaha and now the control of the same is within sub division, Goniana. On 23.12.2010, the concerned meter reader visited the house of the complainant and asked for some illegal gratification and on being refused, he removed the meter without any reason. No other official of the opposite parties was present there. The complainant deposited the amount of bill as Rs.980/- which was payable on or before 17.01.2011. The status of the meter was 'OK' which means, the meter was correct. The opposite parties issued a provisional assessment order bearing memo No.8 dated 03.01.2011 on account of theft of electricity to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that due to M-Code given by the Meter Reader, a meter change order (MCO) bearing No.40/77913 dated 11.06.2010 was issued but due to shortage of new meter in the stock, the said MCO was got effected on 09.08.2010 by Er. Atam Singh, JE, Gonaina Sub Division in the presence of Sukhpreet Singh, representative of the complainant. The meter in quesiotn was removed, packed and sealed in the cardboard box vide paper seal No.5607108 dated 09.08.2010. Sukhpreet Singh was conveyed by Er. Atma Singh, to send Darshan Singh or his representative on 23.12.2010 for getting the meter checked in the ME Lab in his presence. The meter was sent to ME Lab for checking vide challan No.245 dated 23.12.2010. The said meter was taken out from the cardboard box in the ME Lab in the presence of Er. Tarlochan Singh Brar, Sr. XEN, ME Division, Er. Ranjeet Singh, Sr. XEN, Enforcement, Er. Buta Singh, JE, ME Lab, Er. Kewal Krishan Sethi, JE Goniana Sub Division in the presence of Darshan Singh-the complainant. During checking of the meter, it has been found that the seal clumps were cut and on checking the meter from inside, it was found that the inside wires were cut. The complainant was controlling the consumption by cutting the internal wires after cutting the seal clamps and removing the meter cover. Thereafter, the said meter was again packed, sealed and handed over to Er. Kewal Krishan Sethi, JE, Goniana Sub Division. All these facts were reduced in writing on page No.7 of Book No.14 dated 23.12.2010. All the checking officers had signed the said checking report in the presence of the complainant. The complainant had also signed this checking report in token of its correctness. On the basis of the said checking, the opposite party No.2 issued a provisional order of assessment bearing memo No.8 dated 03.01.2011 for a sum of Rs.26,882/- for unauthorized use of electricity to the complainant which was received by Kulwinder Kaur. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The complainant has submitted that the concerned meter reader visited the house of the complainant on 23.12.2010 and asked for illegal gratification and on being refused, he removed the meter without any reason. The complainant made the payment of electric bill of Rs.980/- which was payable on or before 17.01.2011 and the meter status was OK. The complainant received a provisional assessment order bearing memo No.8 dated 03.01.2011 on account of theft of electricity for Rs.26,882/-. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that due to M-Code given by the Meter Reader, the meter change order (MCO) bearing No.40/77913 dated 11.06.2010 was issued but due to shortage of new meter in the stock, the said MCO was got effected on 09.08.2010 by Er. Atam Singh, JE, Gonaina Sub Division in the presence of Sukhpreet Singh. The meter was removed, packed and sealed in the cardboard box vide paper seal No.5607108 dated 09.08.2010. Sukhpreet Singh, the representative of the complainant was told by Er. Atma Singh, to send Darshan Singh or his representative on 23.12.2010 for getting the meter checked in the ME Lab in his presence. The meter was taken to ME Lab for checking vide challan No.245 dated 23.12.2010. The packed and sealed meter was taken out from the cardboard box in the ME Lab in the presence of Er. Tarlochan Singh Brar, Sr. XEN, ME Division, Er. Ranjeet Singh, Sr. XEN, Enforcement, Er. Buta Singh, JE, ME Lab, Er. Kewal Krishan Sethi, JE Goniana Sub Division in the presence of Darshan Singh-the complainant. After taking out the meter from packed and sealed cardboard box, the meter was inspected from the outside and it was found that the seal clamps were cut. On checking the meter from inside, it was found that the inside wires were also cut. The complainant was controlling the consumption by cutting the internal wires and seal clamps and removing the meter cover. The checked meter was again packed, sealed and handed over to Er. Kewal Krishan Sethi, JE, Goniana Sub Division. All these facts were reduced in writing on page No.7 of Book No.14 dated 23.12.2010. All the checking officers signed the said checking report in the presence of the complainant. This checking report was also signed by the complainant in token of its correctness. On the basis of the abovesaid checking report, the opposite party No.2 issued a provisional order of assessment bearing memo No.8 dated 03.01.2011 for a sum of Rs.26,882/- for unauthorized use of electricity. 7. A perusal of Ex.C-2 shows that the meter seal clamps were cut. The wires were also cut from inside. A perusal of checking report Ex.R-5 shows that this checking report was duly signed by the complainant which means, he was present at the time of checking of the meter in the ME Lab. The checking report Ex.R-5 is reproduced as under:- “The packed and sealed meter was taken out from the cardboard box and checked in the ME Lab and on checking, it was found that the wires of the meter were cut from inside. The complainant has been controlling the consumption by cutting the internal wires after cutting the seal clamps and removing the meter cover. It is a case of theft of electricity. The checked meter was again packed, sealed and handed over to concerned officials to be kept in their custody till further proceeding.” 8. The checking report clearly shows that the complainant was committing theft of electricity, thus he is not consumer under the 'Act'. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Ishwar Singh Vs Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 18 (NC), wherein it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(d)(ii), 21(b) – Electricity – Consumer – Commercial purposes – Jurisdiction – Penalty imposed by authorities – Forum allowed complaint – State Commission allowed appeal – Hence revision – Contention, complainant committed theft of energy from PVC joint prior to meter for non-domestic purpose – Accepted – Atta Chakki though installed in house would be for commercial purpose – Nowhere pleaded that Atta Chakki used for own use or means for livelihood – Also in theft of electricity Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction – Complaint prima facie is not a consumer – complaint not maintainable.” 9. A catena of authorities relied upon by the learned counsel of the complainant are not applicable in the case in hand. 10. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant has been indulging in theft of electricity. Hence, this Fora has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint as the complainant is not consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the 'Act'. Thus, this complainant is dismissed without any order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/ court for the redressal of his grievance. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced 03.08.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
