BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/725 of 26.8.2010 

                                                Decided on:          25.8.2011

Gurmukh Singh son of Sukhinder Singh aged 25 years r/o 4, Gurmukh Niwas, Officers Colony, Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

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

2.                 The Assistant Engineer/DS West Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Balbera, 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.B.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is the consumer of the NRS electricity connection bearing account No.P11SW380530K having a sanctioned load of 10.84KW.The complainant has been paying the charges of electricity as per the bills issued and status of the meter has also remained ‘OK’.

2.       The complainant received the bill of the electricity for the period 17.6.2010 to 14.8.2010 for Rs.81430/- also inclusive of Rs.73405/- as arrears of /sundry charges. The complainant enquired from op no.2 about the same and who disclosed that the same pertains to the checking dated 27.8.2008 whereby it was observed that the consumption of electricity was less than the sanctioned load.

3.       It is further averred that the meter was tested in the M.E.Lab in September 2007 and it was informed that the meter had been found tampered but no further action was taken. From September 2007 to August 2010 no notice of any kind was received by the complainant. The complainant has described the bill dated 14.8.2010 for the period 17.6.2010 to 14.8.2010  for Rs.81,430/- as illegal, null and void, against the principles of natural justice etc.

4.       It is also averred by the complainant that the demand of the aforesaid bill for the period 17.6.2010 to 14.8.2010 is time barred under Section 56 of the Electricity Act 2003 which provides that not with understanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall nut cut off the supply of the electricity.

5.       Thus describing the act of the ops in having raised the demand of time barred charges of the electricity as a deficiency of service  has 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 delete the charges of the sundry charges from the bill in question and not to disconnect the supply of the electricity connection on account of the non payment of the same; to pay him Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation on account of harassment and the humiliation suffered by the complainant and also to award him costs of the complaint.

6.       On notice, ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the electricity meter of the account no.SW380530K was replaced vide MCO no.161/68018 dated 28.8.2007 and at the time of the replacement of the meter, it was found that the consumption of the energy being shown by the meter and even the charges being paid by the complainant as per the sanctioned load, was much less and therefore, it was observed and recommended by the competent official namely Surjit Singh,JE who had effected the MCO that the meter be got checked from the ME Lab to know about the internal mechanism. The meter was duly packed and sealed in a cardboard box in the presence of the complainant and the same was sent for checking to the ME Lab vide challan no.78/140.

7.       In the M.E.Lab , it was found that all the ME seals were tampered and reaffixed, which amounted to the theft of the energy by illegal means and therefore, the complainant was liable to pay the amount of the theft of the energy under the rules. However, due to an oversight an appropriate action to recover the amount on account of theft of the energy, as per the rules could not be initiated in time. It was apprised by the internal audit authority during the audit of the account of the electricity connection vide half margin no.14 dated 29.6.2010 and accordingly a sum ofRs.71,333/-was found to be recoverable from the complainant. It is denied, if the recovery is barred by limitation under Section 56 of the Electricity Act 2003. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going, against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8.       In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C4 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

9.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of AEE Stash Gupta of West Commercial Sub Division,PSPCL Patiala, Ex.R2, the sworn affidavit of Jaskaran Singh,AEE of the ME Lab PSPCL,Patiala alongwith documents,Exs.R3 to R5 and closed their evidence.

10      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.

11.     As per the plea taken up by the ops, the electricity meter of account No. SW380530K was replaced vide MCO no.161/68018 dated 28.8.2007 and the same was sent to the M.E.Lab vide challan No.78/140 dated 11.4.2008 and due to the checking made in the M.E.Lab all the M.E.seals were found tampered and reaffixed. The ops have not produced the report of the M.E.Lab.They have merely produced in evidence,Ex.R3, the photo copy of challan No.78 dated 11.4.2008 which simply shows that a number of meters were sent to M.E.Lab,Patiala The entry made in the copy of challan,Ex.R3 read with the help of the MCO no.161/68018 pertains to meter no.7580.Something has been written to be read with great difficulty as “ME seals tampered and reaffixed’ but the same does not bear the signatures of any officer in the M.E.Lab. Time and again it has been observed that this is not the procedure in the M.E.Lab to give a report regarding the checking of a meter. Independent report should be prepared under the signatures/stamp of the Sr.Xen, AEE and the concerned JE.

12.     Even if for the sake of arguments, we believe that the meter was checked in the M.E.Lab and it was found that ME seals were tampered and reaffixed, it is not a conclusive proof about the theft of the energy because no report is made with regard to the internal mechanism of the meter i.e. whether it was working slow or was dead because of any interference to have been made in the coils or other apparatus  of the meter.

13.     In the case of the citation Ram Kishan Versus D.H.B.V.N.L.,Hishar & Ors. 2008(1)CLT 361 it was observed by the  Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula , “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.”

14.     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”.

15.     There is another aspect of the case going against the ops in as much as the meter was removed vide MCO no.161/68018 dated 28.8.2007 and on checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab on 11.4.2008 as would appear from Ex.R3, the copy of challan, the ME seals of the meter were found to have been tampered with. The process for recovering the amount should have been initiated then and there failing which under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003, the ops could not recover the same beyond a period of two years. It is provided under Section 56(2) that not with understanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall nut cut off the supply of the electricity. After all the amount was payable by the complainant having made a consumption of electricity but as admitted by the ops, the recovery could not be made in time erroneously and inadvertently.

16.     Moreover in the case of the citation Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Versus Rajji Bai 2009(1)CLT 526 , the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula made a reference to  Sales Circular  No.27/96, which reads as under:

“ It is regular feature in the Electricity Board that Audit Parties audit the consumer’s account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party. It is understood that whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party, the SDO concerned is required to check the report but in practice the penalty is imposed without any cross checking by the SDO concerned. Before imposing penalty, etc., notice is required to be given to consumer to explain his position.

The requirement of law is that proper prescribed procedures is to be followed and before imposing penalty on the consumer notice is required to be issued to the consumer. It should be ensured that seven days is given to the consumer before imposing penalty in such cases.”

17.     Again it is provided under Regulation no.102.2 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual that the bill to a consumer on account of under assessment   pointed out by the internal audit or the charges levied as a result of  report  from additional SE Sr.Xen/AEE(enforcement) MMTS, should be raised separately and such arrears could not be clubbed with the current energy bill of the consumer.

18.     In our case the ops clubbed the amount of Rs.73405/- shown as  sundry charges in the impugned bill,Ex.C4 dated 14.8.2010.

19.     Therefore, viewing the case of the complainant from any angle, it is not possible for us to accept the plea of the ops and the demand of Rs.73405/- raised as sundry charges in the bill dated 14.8.2010,Ex.C14, can not be up held and the same is hereby quashed. Since no representation in writing was made by the complainant to the ops in the matter, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Pronounced.

Dated:25.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President