DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.170 of 25-04-2011 Decided on 29-07-2011
Jaspal Singh, aged about 50 years son of Sh. Kapoor Singh, Resident of Nai Basti, Goniana, District Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/CMD . SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Distribution Sub Division, Goniana.
......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.R.D.Goyal, 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 connection No.BG55/612. The complainant received a memo No.290 dated 02.02.2011 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.50,646/- on the basis of ME Lab report dated 31.01.2011 that the meter body and counter of the meter found tampered and consumption of the meter was controlled. The complainant filed objections against the said memo before the Superintendent Er. Operation Circle, Bathinda who dismissed the objections of the complainant vide order No.6195/97/G.C.8-A/Bathinda of 22.03.2011 without hearing and affording opportunity to the complainant. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that the said checking dated 31.01.2011 was neither made in the presence of the complainant; he was never called in the ME Lab nor any notice was given to him; he neither committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly; the alleged theft cannot be made as the meter is installed on the road; no person can be punished for one offence whereas the opposite parties have issued a memo No.290 dated 02.02.2011 of Rs.50,646/- and Rs.24,000/- for compounding the offence; the condition of the meter was never shown to the complainant neither at the time of installation nor at the time of removal; the meter was already burnt as per report. The SE has mentioned in his order dated 22.03.2011; the meter was neither packed in the cardboard box nor his signatures were obtained by the opposite parties; the meter was not sealed in the presence of the complainant; no formula or explanation has been given by the opposite parties on what rate under which provisions the alleged amount has been raised; the opposite parties never pointed out any defect or made any complaint regarding the alleged theft; no final order of assessment can be made nor any demand raised on the basis of such invalid, incompetent and unauthorized inspection. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that when the meter of the complainant was removed for installing in a pillar box on 26.11.2010 and at that time, it was found that the body of the meter from its back side was tampered. So, it was packed and sealed in the presence of the representative of the complainant who also signed the Paper seal. Thereafter, a notice No.211 dated 27.01.2011 was issued which was duly received by the representative of the complainant for his presence on 31.01.2011 at 10.00 am for the purpose of checking the meter in his presence. He did not come in the ME Lab for checking of the meter on 31.01.2011. The meter was checked by Sr. XEN, ME Lab, Bathinda alongwith his staff and it was found that the body of the meter and its counter has been tampered and he was controlling the consumption of the electricity. On the basis of said checking, a provisional order of assessment bearing memo No.290 dated 02.02.2011 was issued to the complainant for depositing the amount of Rs.50,640/- and this notice was also received by Baljeet Kaur. Thereafter, this notice was challenged before Deputy Chief Engineer, Bathinda who after hearing both the parties and considering the documents, decided to get the compensation of 10 months from the complainant. On the basis of this order of Deputy Chief Engineer, another notice No.1164 dated 25.04.2011 was issued for getting the compensation of Rs.36,970/- from the complainant which was also duly received by the representative of the complainant and the complainant is bound to accept the decision of Deputy Chief Engineer. 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 received a memo No.290 dated 02.02.2011 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.50,646/- on the basis of ME Lab report dated 31.01.2011 in which it has been mentioned that the meter body and counter of the meter found tampered and consumption of the meter was controlled. The complainant filed objections against the said memo before the Superintendent Er. Operation Circle, Bathinda who dismissed the objections of the complainant vide order No.6195/97/G.C.8-A/Bathinda of 22.03.2011 without affording any opportunity of being heard to the complainant. The complainant has challenged the abovesaid memo on different grounds that the said checking dated 31.01.2011 was neither made in the presence of the complainant nor he was called in the ME Lab nor any notice was given to him to come present in the ME Lab nor he committed any theft of electricity; the meter is installed on the road; a memo No.290 dated 02.02.2011 is showing the demanded amount of Rs.50,646/- and Rs.24,000/- as compounding charges. The complainant has further submitted that the condition of the meter was never shown to the complainant neither at the time of installation nor at the time of removal; the meter was already burnt as per report mentioned in order dated 22.03.2011; the said meter was neither packed nor sealed in the cardboard box nor his signatures or the signatures of any of his representative were obtained by the opposite parties. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that the meter of the complainant was removed for installing in a pillar box on 26.11.2010 and at that time, it was found that the body of the meter from its back side was tampered. It was packed and sealed in the presence of the representative of the complainant who signed the Paper seal. Thereafter, a notice No.211 dated 27.01.2011 was issued which was duly signed by the representative of the complainant for seeking his presence in the ME Lab on 31.01.2011 at 10.00 a.m. for checking the meter. He did not come to the ME Lab for getting his meter checked in his presence on 31.01.2011. The said meter was checked by Sr. XEN, ME Lab, Bathinda alongwith his staff and it was found that the body and its counter has been tampered and he was controlling the consumption of electricity and on the basis of said checking report, a provisional order of assessment bearing memo No.290 dated 02.02.2011 was issued to the complainant for depositing the amount of Rs.50,640/- and this notice was received by one Baljeet Kaur. Thereafter, this notice was challenged before Deputy Chief Engineer, Bathinda who after hearing both the parties and considering the documents, decided to recover the compensation to 10 months. On the basis of this order, another notice No.1164 dated 25.04.2011 was issued for getting the compensation of Rs.36,970/- from the complainant which was also duly received by the representative of the complainant. 7. A perusal of record placed on file shows that vide Ex.R-3, the meter was checked in the ME Lab and four officials of the opposite parties have signed this checking report and the complainant was not present in the ME Lab at the time of checking of the meter despite receiving the notice. 8. Ex.R-7 dated 27.01.2011 is the last chance, provided to the complainant to be present in the ME Lab to get his meter checked in his presence. This notice has been duly received by Balpreet Singh, representative of the complainant. Before this, the opposite parties have issued a notice to the complainant vide Ex.R-6 dated 20.12.2010 which has been received by Surjit Kaur, representative of the complainant. Despite receiving the notices, the complainant has failed to appear in the ME Lab. The opposite parties had no other option then to check the meter in his absence and to give their report. The meter was duly sealed and packed vide Ex.R-4. 9. Sh. Buta Singh, J.E. Testing vide Ex.R-2 has deposed in his affidavit that the meter No.815592 bearing account No.BG-55/612 is in the name of Jaspal Singh S/o Sh. Kapoor Singh. This meter was brought to the ME Lab by Kewal Krishan, J.E. on 31.01.2011 and it was found that the body and the counter of the meter were tampered and the complainant was controlling the consumption of electricity with malafide intention to give financial loss to the opposite parties. Sh. Kewal Krishan was also one of the member of the checking team in the ME Lab. Jaspreet Singh S/o Jaspal Singh appeared before the SE and has presented his case. The Designated Authority after perusing the record of the complainant, had reduced the amount from 12 months to 10 months. So, the contention of the complainant that the meter was not removed, sealed and packed in his presence is falsified as the seal through which the meter was sealed, is duly placed on file by the opposite parties, signed by the representative of the complainant. Moreover, despite receiving the notices, the complainant has failed to appear before the ME Lab which shows that he intentionally has not visited the ME Lab. 10. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced 29.07.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
