Punjab

Bhatinda

CC/11/243

Paramjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Saudager Singh Jhajji

07 Sep 2011

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,BATHINDA (PUNJAB)DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,Govt.House No.16-D,Civil station,Near SSP Residence,BATHINDA-151001.
Complaint Case No. CC/11/243
1. Paramjit Kaurw/o Ranjit Singh r/o Village Chak Ramsingh wala, Bathinda ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. PSPC Ltd.The Mall, Patial through its Secretary2. XEN/SDOPSPC Ltd., Sub Division, Bhuchu, Distt. BathindaBathinda ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:

PRESENT :Saudager Singh Jhajji, Advocate for Complainant
Sh.J.D.Nayyar,O.P.s., Advocate for Opp.Party

Dated : 07 Sep 2011
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.243 of 02-06-2011

Decided on 07-09-2011


 

Paramjit Kaur W/o Ranjit Singh, aged 42 years Resident of village Chak Ram Singh Wala, District Bathinda.

 .......Complainant

Versus


 

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

  2. The XEN/SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Bhucho, District Bathinda.

    ......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. Saudagar Singh, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh. J.D. Nayyar, 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 No.B65CR290 533L and he has been paying the bills regularly and nothing is due against her. The complainant received a memo No.523 dated 04.08.2010 for a sum of Rs.23,577/- from the opposite parties on the basis that the premises of the complainant was checked by the opposite parties on 02.08.2010 and it was found that one seal of the meter was missing and the other was tampered with, in this way, the complainant was committing theft of electricity. The complainant has challenged the said demand on various grounds that the abovesaid demand raised by the opposite parties is without any basis, the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount as the status of his meter is OK. The reading recorded of consumed units was shown in the bills; the complainant has never indulged into theft of electricity; the meter installed at the premises of the complainant, was not checked by any competent person or authority, no legal procedure was followed for the said purpose; the said checking report has been prepared by sitting in the office as it has not been done in the presence of the complainant; the complainant is an illiterate rustic lady and she has got no technical knowledge to commit theft of electricity by breaking the seals; No objectionable instrument or object was recovered from the house of the complainant to prove theft of electricity. The complainant has several times approached the opposite parties and requested them to withdraw the said demand but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the electricity meter of the complainant was defective, it had been removed by the officials of the opposite parties vide MCO No.122/7134. Thereafter, the removed meter was duly packed and sealed in the cardboard box and the same was sent to the ME Lab for its checking. The said meter was checked by the responsible officers of the opposite parties in the ME Lab on 02.08.2010 and according to the report of ME Lab, one seal of the meter was found to be missing and the other was tampered with by the complainant. The report regarding the same had been made on the challan itself as per procedure. This act of the complainant amounted to theft of energy by unauthorized means and as such, as per the provisions of Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act and CC No. 53/2006, and Regulation No.37 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 of the opposite parties, the complainant had been issued a provisional order of assessment No.523 dated 04.08.2010 for unauthorized use of electricity of Rs.23,577/- which had been calculated as per rules (i.e. L x D x H x PF % = Units x Tariff x 2 x12 months) as the recoverable amount and had also been informed that an FIR has been recorded against the complainant on the basis of the said theft u/s 135 of the Electricity Act and in case she wanted, she could deposit another amount of Rs.12,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. The complainant had been further asked that in case, she did not agree with this Provisional order, she could file the objections, if any within 15 days from the date of notice with SE/Dy CE DS Circle, Bathinda but she did not file any objections thus, the demand so raised has become final and recoverable from the connection holder.

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 opposite parties have sent a memo No.523 dated 04.08.2010 for a sum of Rs.23,577/- to the complainant on the basis of checking report done in his premises on 02.08.2010. During checking, it has been found that one seal of the meter was missing, the other was tampered. In this way, the complainant was committing theft of electricity. The demand so raised by the opposite parties has been challenged by the complainant on numerous grounds. The complainant has submitted that he is not liable to pay the demanded amount as the meter at the premises of the complainant was OK, the reading was being noted and the consumed units were shown in the bills. The complainant has been paying the bills on the basis of average. No checking has been done by any competent authority in his presence. No objectionable instrument or object was recovered from the house of the complainant to prove that the complainant was committing theft of electricity.

6. The opposite parties have submitted that the electric meter of the complainant being defective, had been removed by the officials of the opposite parties vide MCO No.122/7134. The removed meter, duly sealed and packed in the cardboard box, was sent to the ME Lab for checking. The said meter was checked in the ME Lab by the responsible officers of the opposite parties on 02.08.2010 and as per the report of ME Lab, one seal of the meter was found to be missing and the other seal was found to be tampered with by the complainant. The report regarding the same had been made on the challan itself as per procedure. As per the provisions of Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act and CC No. 53/2006, and Regulation No.37 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 of the opposite parties, the complainant had been issued a provisional order of assessment No.523 dated 04.08.2010 for unauthorized use of electricity, making a demand of Rs.23,577/- which had been calculated as per rules (i.e. L x D x H x PF % = Units x Tariff x 2 x12 months) as the amount recoverable from the complainant and FIR has been lodged against the complainant on the basis of the said theft and in case she wanted, she could deposit another amount of Rs.12,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. The complainant was further asked to file objections, if any, within 15 days from the date of notice with SE/Dy CE DS Circle, Bathinda but she did not file any objection thus, the said demand so raised become final and as such, recoverable from the complainant.

7. A perusal of bills placed on file Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 shows the status of the meter is 'O' and the consumed units being recorded by the meter in the last 12 months is CY1 – 514, CY2 – 514, CY3 – 442, CY4 – 368, CY5 – 282 and CY6 – 184. Before this, the meter of the complainant was changed by the officials of the opposite parties vide MCO No.122/7134. The meter so removed, was sealed and packed in the cardboard box and sent to the ME Lab for checking. In the ME Lab, it was found that one seal missing and the other seal tampered with by the complainant. The said checking report had been made on the challan itself.

8. There is no elaborated ME Lab checking report placed on file. No evidence has been produced on file by the opposite parties that the meter was removed in the presence of the complainant. The MCO has also not been produced by the opposite parties which clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties that the meter has been removed in the absence of the complainant. The opposite parties have specifically alleged that the meter was defective, the consumption of last 12 months which is reproduced in Ex.C-10 shows the status of the meter as OK and has been duly recording the consumed units. Tarlochan Singh Brar, Sr. XEN, ME Lab in his affidavit Ex.R-2 has deposed that the removed meter of the complainant, was received in the ME Lab in duly packed and sealed condition for checking the same in the ME Lab. The said meter was checked by him alongwith other responsible officers of the opposite parties in the ME Lab on 02.08.2010 and it was found that one seal of the meter was missing whereas the other tampered with by the complainant. The report regarding the same had been made on the challan itself as per procedure. The said Tarlochan Singh, in his affidavit Ex.R-2 has not disclosed the name of the other responsible officers who had checked the meter of the complainant in the ME Lab, the affidavits of those persons have not been placed on file. The opposite parties have not followed the rule of natural justice as no opportunity was provided to the complainant, to be present in the ME Lab for the checking of his meter in his presence, thus maxim 'Audi Alterm parten' has not been followed.

9. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, the meter of the complainant has not been removed in his presence and the meter status was OK and it has been recording the reading and showing the consumed units. All the bills issued to him on average basis. The opposite parties have failed to follow the procedure provided under their own rules and regulations It is mandatory to check the meter in the presence of the complainant after giving him due notice but no such notice has been produced by the opposite parties on file as no such intimation was given to the complainant for getting his meter checked in the ME Lab. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Tirath Ram, III (2003) CPJ 77, wherein it has been held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Electricity – Meter changed – Old meter taken unpacked – Demand raised alleging meter running slow by 76% and seals were tampered – Demands quashed by Forum – Hence appeal – Meter not sealed and packed at the spot – Complainant was never invited to ME Lab at the time of testing – Demand made against established rules, rightly quashed by Forum.”

10. Thus, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation and the demand so raised by the opposite parties through memo no.523 dated 04.08.2010 for a sum of Rs.23,577/- is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are at liberty to recover the amount of consumed units only mentioned in Ex.C-10 . The complainant was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.8,000/- allowing his application for seeking stay for the electric connection vide order dated 03.06.2011, the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.8,000/- alongwith interest, if deposited by the complainant. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '

Pronounced in open Forum

07-09-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President


 


 

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member


 


 

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member