BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 765 of 6.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          26.8.2011

Gulbahar Singh S/o Shamsher Singh aged about 43 years r/o H.No.54B, Prof.Colony, Opp.Punjabi University, Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala through its Member Secretary/CMD.

2.                 The Assistant Executive Engineer/Bahadurgarh Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., District Patiala.

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

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Mayank Malhotra, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.P.S.Walia, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                                  The complainant is a consumer of DS electricity connection bearing account No.UF01/1129. He has been making the payment of the charges of the electricity regularly in respect of the bills received by him. The status of the meter has also been shown as OK in the bills.

2.                               On 28.8.2010, the officials of the ops conducted the checking of the electricity connection of the complainant and who removed the meter packed in a cardboard box affixed with paper seal for getting the same checked from the M.E.Lab. The official had obtained the signatures of the father of the complainant on the said card board box.

3.                               On 3.9.2010, the officials of the ops had come to disconnect the supply to the electricity connection of the complainant. However, when he enquired about the reason for the same, he was handed over notice no.1875 dated 31.8.2010 issued on the basis of the checking report dated 28.8.2010 having raised the demand of Rs.56248/- including the amount of Rs.21000/- as compounding fee.

4.       The complainant has described the checking, checking report and the demand to be illegal, null and void being in violation of the principle of natural justice etc. It is averred that memo no.1875 dated 31.8.2010 shows that the M.E. seals were found tampered. The meter had not been got checked in the M.E. Lab. to find out accuracy of the meter as also the genuineness of the seals. Thus describing the act of the ops a deficiency of service, the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) for setting aside the demand made vide memo no.1875 dated 31.8.2010; to pay him a compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment and humiliation suffered by him at the hands of the ops and also to award the costs of the complaint.

5.       On notice, the 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 by the raiding party consisting of AE Hardev Singh of Ghanour, AE Vikas Gill of Bahadurgarh,AEE Taranjit Singh of Bahadurgarh and Meter Inspector  Surinder Pal Sharma on 28.8.2010 and that the ME seals of the meter of the complainant were found tampered. It was a case of theft of energy. The checking report was duly prepared at the spot in the presence of the father of the complainant who signed the same in token of correctness of the same. The copy of the checking report was also provided to him. The meter was removed and duly packed. There was no need to get the meter checked by the M.E.Lab since the tampering of the same was visible to the naked eye. Therefore, the memo was issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act under the rules. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.       In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 and C3 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

7.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Hardev Singh,AE, Ex.R2 the sworn affidavit of Vikas Gill,AE alongwith documents,Exs.R3 and R4 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

8.       The ops filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

 9.      Ex.C3 is the copy of the checking report dated 28.8.2010 as got proved by the ops with the assistance of the sworn affidavits,Exs.R1 of AE Hardev Singh of Ghanour Sub Division and R2 of AE Vikas Gill of Bahadurgarh Sub Division who had conducted the checking of the connection of the complainant. As per the checking report, the ME seals of the meter were found to have been tampered. The meter was packed at the spot in the presence of the consumer.

10.     Admittedly the ops have not got the meter tested by the M.E.Lab. In the case of the citation Ram Kishan Versus D.H.B.V.N.L.,Hishar & Ors. 2008(1)CLT 361 the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula observed, “the checking report dated 28.8.2005 placed on record itself records that all M&T seals of the meter were found tampered with. The Inspecting Team had not noticed any means of dishonest abstraction of energy being committed by the complainant. No other corroborative evidence of consumption data and load survey, etc. had been produced on record from the side of the opposite parties so as to indicate that the complainant was engaged in abstracting the energy prior to the date of inspection. Surprising enough the meter which was removed and sealed into cardboard box as per procedure was not sent by the opposite parties to their M&T Lab so as to find out the corroborative evidence in support of the allegations leveled against the complainant, upto the time when the complaint was filed by the complainant.”

11.     Similarly 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”.

12.     In case the officials of the ops were really interested to detect the theft of the energy by the complainant and they were not interested to get the meter removed from the site tested by the M.E.Lab, they should have installed a parallel meter to note the difference in the energy consumed by the meter in question and the parallel meter, in the absence of which it would appear that the officials of the ops had not the will and conviction to bring to light the truth. Consequently, we find that the demand raised by the ops on the basis of the order of provisional assessment dated 31.8.2010( copy Ex.C2) can not be up held and we accordingly accept the complaint and seaside the said demand raised by the ops. Since no written representation was made by the complainant against the aforesaid order of provisional assessment, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Pronounced.

Dated:26.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President