DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 290 of 21-06-2011 Decided on : 22-09-2011
Ramesh Kumar aged about 46 years S/o Sh. Ved Parkash R/o H. No. 20923, Gali No. 13, Ajit Road, Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/CMD. SDO/AEE, Cantt. Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, 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
For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.P.S. Brar, counsel for opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is holder of domestic electric connection bearing A/c No. CL-46/248. He has been paying the electricity bills so issued by the opposite parties and nothing was due against him. He received a memo No. 678 dated 7-6-2011 received on 20-06-2011 from the opposite parties raising a demand of Rs. 32,297/- from him, on the basis of M.E. Lab report dated 20-05-2011 wherein it has been written that meter seals found tampered; the meter was installed on testing bench for getting result; current coil in yellow phase found slow down; consumption was found controlled and it is a case of theft of electricity. The complainant alleged that aforesaid memo for an amount of Rs. 32,297/- and Rs. 21,000/- as compounding fee is illegal and against the rules of the opposite parties on the ground that; the checking dated 30-05-2011 was never made in his presence rather his signatures were obtained on blank report of M.E. Lab; the complainant never committed any theft of energy; the meter is installed on the road and there is no possibility of theft; condition of the meter was never shown to him before installation; the meter was neither packed, nor sealed in his presence nor his signatures were obtained by the opposite parties. The meter of the complainant was showing correct consumption upto 17-05-2009 and thereafter all the bills were issued on 'D' code as meter became defective and bills were issued on average basis upto 31-12-2010. The opposite parties charged higher average whereas consumption shown by meter is very less after 31-12-2010. The meter was removed on 31-12-2010 without any notice. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties have not followed the procedure under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before taking action. The complainant alleged that he made many requests and personally met the opposite parties to withdraw the memo No. 678 dated 7-6-2011, but no effect. Hence, he has filed the present complaint. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and pleaded that electric meter of the complainant was changed on 31-12-2010 vide MCO No. B11/M/10/1209 dated 16-10-2010 effected on 31-12-2010 by Angrej Singh. J.E. on account of 'D' code, in the presence of complainant himself and after affecting the MCO, the same was packed and sealed in cardboard box and paper seal No. 609 dated 31-12-2010 was affixed and complainant signed the same. He was informed to be present in M.E. Lab so that the meter could be checked in his presence. Accordingly, on 30-05-2011, the meter was checked in the presence of the complainant. The packed and sealed meter was shown to the complainant, who after satisfying the intactness of seals, put his signatures at mark 'A' on the checking report. Thereafter the meter was taken out of the cardboard box and was checked in the M.E. Lab. On checking, it was found that the turns of current coils of yellow phase have been reduced and the consumption was controlled in unauthorized manner and the officials of the M.E. Lab held it to be a case of theft of electricity. The detailed checking report was prepared in the presence of the complainant being satisfied and he signed the checking report and copy of the same was handed over to him. On the basis of checking report, a provisional demand notice U/S 135 of the Electricity Act, bearing memo No. 678 dated 7-6-2011 raising a demand of Rs. 32,297/- on account of theft of electricity and Rs. 21,000/- for compounding the offence was issued to the complainant vide which he was directed to deposit the demanded amount or to file the objection before S.E. Op. Circle, Bathinda within 15 days, but the complainant instead of filing the objections, filed the present complaint. The opposite parties have pleaded that the demand raised by them is legal and valid in all respects. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The allegation of the complainant is that his electric meter, after removal, was neither packed nor sealed in his presence, nor his signatures were obtained. The checking dated 30-05-2011 was never made in his presence rather his signatures were obtained on blank M.E. Lab report. Hence, he is not liable to pay any demand raised by the opposite parties on the basis of said checking report. On the other hand, the version of the opposite parties is that they have followed all their rules and regulation. The electric meter of the complainant after removal, was duly packed, sealed and the complainant put his signatures on the seal. The meter was checked in his presence in the M.E. Lab whereby theft of electricity was detected and he signed the M.E. Lab report being satisfied and now, he cannot deny the payment of the memo in question. The opposite parties have pleaded that after removal of the defective meter of the complainant, it was duly packed in the cardboard box, sealed and complainant signed the same, but a perusal of record reveals that no copy of seal signed by the officials of the opposite parties as well as the complainant has been produced on file to show that actually the meter was duly packed and sealed. The meter of the complainant was changed on 31-12-2010 vide MCO No. B11/M/10/1209 dated 16-10-2010 Ex. R-4. The said MCO was effected on 31-12-2010. The electric meter of the complainant has been sent to M.E. Lab after expiry of the period of five months whereas as per Commercial Circular No. 22/99 of the opposite parties, they are to check the meter in the M.E. Lab as under :- “....Sub : Packing of defective meters in sealed cardboard boxes In continuation of Commercial Circular No. 8/99 dated 2.3.1999. As per SM1-104, meters on removal are to be sent to M.E. Laboratory within a maximum period of 15 days. Difficulties have been reported in complying with these instructions because M.E. Laboratories have fixed only one day in a month for receiving such meters from one sub division. It has, therefore, now been decided that the removed meters against any Meter Change Order be sent to M.E. Laboratory in the sealed card board boxes duly signed by the concerned PSEB Official/Official and the consumer or his representative within a period of 15 to 30 days. SM1-104 may be considered as amended to the above extent.” As discussed above, since the copy of the seal has not been produced on file. However, seal No. 609 has been mentioned on the M.E. Lab report but it is not mentioned on Meter Change Order Ex. R-4. If the meter of the complainant would have been packed and sealed while effecting the M.C.O. then seal number of the packed meter should have been mentioned on the MCO, which has not been done. Hence, it cannot be believed that meter was actually packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant. A perusal of M.E. Lab checking report Ex. R-5 reveals that meter of the complainant was checked in the M.E. Lab on 30-05-2011 whereas it was removed on 31-12-2010. Hence, it was checked after five months from the date of removal. When the meter was not packed and sealed, it is not known that in which condition and under whose custody the meter was lying for five months. As per M.E. Lab report the turns of current coils of yellow phase been reduced and the consumption was controlled in unauthorized manner. When the meter remained unsealed for five months, it is not known that under which condition it remained and how the complainant said to have reduced the turns of coils. Moreover, the opposite parties have not followed their own rules and regulations as mentioned in the the aforesaid circular. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the memo in question without any basis and the complainant is not liable to pay the demanded amount. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and the memo No. 678 dated 07-06-2011 Ex. C-1 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to :- i) Overhaul the account of the complainant and issue him fresh bills for the period for which he had been charged on average basis, considering the consumption of the complainant of the previous year of those particulars months/period and to adjust the amount he has already deposited. ii) Furnish the detailed statement to the complainant by showing each and every bill of the complainant i.e. charged on average basis and the bill of the previous year of that particular month iii) Refund the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant as per order dated 22-06-2011 of this Forum, for not disconnecting his electric connection or any other amount, if any deposited by complainant in excess. The compliance of this order be made 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 the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced : 22-09-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President (Amarjeet Paul) (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member Member
|
