DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.228 of 25-05-2011 Decided on 07-09-2011
Surinder Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Sh. Pirthi Chand, R/o Phul Road, Rampura, Thesil Phul, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its C.M.D. A.E.E./S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Urban Sub Division, Rampura Phul, Distt. 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. Vikas Singla, 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 electricity connection bearing A/c No. B-61 MS 610149N, having sanctioned load of 78.97 kw to earn his livelihood and for his family and has been paying the bills regularly. The said connection of the complainant was disconnected and the same had been got restored on 17.03.2010 by the opposite parties and thereafter, he has been using the connection in question and paying the bills regularly. Thereafter, the complainant received a provisional assessment order No.2625/26 dated 20.04.2011 from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.2,05,070/- on account of unauthorized use of electricity with the allegations that the connection of the complainant was checked by SDO, Rampura, Sr. XEN (Enforcement-II), Distribution Division, Rampura and other officials of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. on 09.04.2011 and it was found that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was found running slow by 26.56% due to some Carbon on Y-phase of the said meter. It is also written that the meter was checked after putting the load of 40.61 kw by RS & EC and on checking, it was found that the meter was running slow. The complainant has alleged that no such defect was ever pointed out at the time of alleged checking rather the memo dated 20.04.2011 shows that the Data was down loaded and the meter was found running correctly and the same was again sealed by the officials of the checking party after checking and cleaning the said meter. After preparing the said report, the officials of the checking party closed the report and the signature of the complainant were obtained by the officials of the opposite parties, at three places. A copy of the checking report was not supplied to the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that the checking was conducted on 09.04.2011 while the alleged notice has been issued on 20.04.2011; the meter as well as connection installed in the premises of the complainant was duly checked by the SDO/JE-I on 07.04.2011 at the time of taking the reading i.e. only two days prior to the date of abovesaid checking dated 09.04.2011 and no defect was pointed out by the SDO/JE-I. The connection as well as meter was also checked on 11.12.2010 and the same was found to be OK and during the said period from 11.12.2010 to 09.04.2011, the complainant has been regularly receiving the bills. The connection and meter of the complainant is also being looked after by Sh. Pargat Singh once or by the complainant for proper permanently engaged by the complainant for proper maintenance of the machinery in the premises of the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that after receiving the said memo, he filed the objections against the said demand raised by the opposite parties before the Designated Authority who disclosed to the complainant that they are not competent to receive the objections u/s 126 of the Electricity Act and required the complainant to file the objections before the Sr. Executive Engineer, Distribution Division, Rampura. The complainant filed objections before the said official who issued the final order of assessment vide notice No.3373 dated 20.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.33,630/- to the complainant. The said official did not provide any opportunity of being heard to the complainant to prove his contention. The complainant requested the opposite parties to withdraw the said demand but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant is habitual of getting involved in theft of energy which proves from the fact that another case of theft was detected against him for which the complainant had filed the complaint before this Forum vide case titled Surinder Kumar Vs PSPCL and this Forum had dismissed the said complaint in favour of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the premises of the complainant had been checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 09.04.2011 in his presence and on checking, the carbon was found on the Y-Phase of the meter and the meter was found running slow by 26.56%. The checking report was prepared at the spot by the responsible officials of the opposite parties and the complainant himself had signed the said checking report as token of its correctness and on account of his having received the copy of the same which was supplied to him at that time. As such, the complainant had been issued a provisional order of assessment vide letter No.2625/26 dated 20.04.2011 u/s 126 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.2,05,070/-. The details of the said amount had also been mentioned on the said notice itself. The complainant had been asked to file objections within 7 days against the provisional order of assessment. He filed objections before the Designated Authority and after hearing his objections, the Assessing Officer passed its order vide memo No.3373 dated 20.05.2011 and the amount was reduced to Rs.33,630/-which was sent to the complainant as final order of assessment. The complainant instead of making the payment of the amount demanded, has filed the present complaint. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the electricity connection of the complainant has been disconnected for his being involved in anti social activities as directed by the administrative authorities. However, the same had been subsequently reconnected on the directions of the Court. 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 undisputed facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding electricity connection bearing A/c No. B-61 MS 610149N, having sanctioned load of 78.97 kw. The connection of the complainant was disconnected and the same had been got restored on 17.03.2010. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had received a provisional assessment order No.2625/26 dated 20.04.2011 from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.2,05,070/- on account of account of unauthorized use of electricity with the allegations that the connection of the complainant was checked by SDO, Rampura, Sr. XEN (Enforcement-II), Distribution Division, Rampura alongwith other officials on 09.04.2011. During checking, it was found that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was found running slow by 26.56% due to some Carbon on the Y-phase of the meter. When the meter was checked after putting the load of 40.61 kw by RS & EC and on checking, it was found that the meter was running slow. No such defect was ever pointed out at the time of alleged checking rather the memo dated 20.04.2011 shows that the data was down loaded and the meter was found running correctly. It was again sealed by the officials of the checking party after checking and cleaning the said meter. The officials of the checking party have prepared a checking report and obtained the signature of the complainant on three different places. A copy of the checking report was not supplied to the complainant, the notice was issued on 20.04.2011. The complainant has challenged the said notice/memo on numerous grounds that when the meter was checked by the SDO/JE-I on 07.04.2011 at that time while recording the reading i.e. only two days prior to the date of said checking dated 09.04.2011, no defect was pointed out by the SDO/JE-I in the working of the meter. The connection as well as meter was checked on 11.12.2010 and the same was found to be OK and during the said period from 11.12.2010 to 09.04.2011, the complainant has been regularly receiving the bills. The connection and meter of the complainant is looked after by Sh. Pargat Singh, once or twice in a week who has been permanently engaged by the complainant for proper maintenance of the machinery in the premises of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the said memo/notice is a result of the political pressure. The official was acting at the behest of political bigs of ruling party who is personally inimical to the complainant. After receiving the memo/notice, the complainant had filed the objections before the Designated Authority but the Designated Authority conveyed that the complainant that it is not competent to receive the objections u/s 126 of the Electricity Act and the same were out of their jurisdiction and required the complainant to file the objections before the Sr. Executive Engineer, Distribution Division, Rampura. Thereafter, the complainant filed objections before Sr. Executive Engineer, Distribution Division, Rampura who issued the final order of assessment vide notice No.3373 dated 20.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.33,630/- to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the opposite parties have not provided him a proper opportunity of being heard and have issued a final order of assessment for Rs.33,630/- which is against the rules and regulations of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted in para no.12 of the preliminary objections that the complainant is habitual of getting involved in theft of energy which stands proved from the fact that another case of theft was detected against him for which the complainant had filed the complaint before this Forum titled Surinder Kumar Vs PSPCL which was dismissed by this Forum. The learned counsel for opposite parties has further submitted that the premises of the complainant had been checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 09.04.2011 in the presence of the complainant and on checking, carbon was found on the Y-Phase of the meter and accordingly, the meter was found running slow by 26.56%. The checking report was prepared at the spot by the responsible officials of the opposite parties and the complainant himself had signed the said checking report as token of its correctness and on account of his having received the copy of the same which was supplied to him at the spot. As, this is a case of slowness of the meter, the complainant had been issued the provisional order of assessment vide letter No.2625/26 dated 20.04.2011 u/s 126 of the Electricity Act and an amount of Rs.2,05,070/- was calculated to be recoverable from the complainant. The details of the amount had been mentioned on the said notice. The complainant had been asked to file objections, if any, within 7 days against the provisional order of assessment. He had filed objections before the Designated Authority and then before the Assessing officer and after hearing his objections, the Assessing Officer passed its order vide memo No.3373 dated 20.05.2011 and the amount was reduced to Rs.33,630/- as per details mentioned in the said letter which was sent to the complainant as final order of assessment. In para no.2 on merit, the learned counsel has further submitted that the electricity connection of the complainant has been disconnected for his being involved in anti social activities as directed by the administrative authorities and the same had been subsequently reconnected on the directions of the Court. The complainant had not been regularly making the payment of the bills. The checking was conducted by the checking staff and status of the meter was detected by checking squad and the complainant had duly signed the checking report without any protest and the same has been supplied to the complainant at the spot which prove the correctness of the checking report. 7. Vide Ex.C-1 i.e. checking report, the English rendering of the relevant portion of this checking report is reproduced as under:- “On the spot, Sr. XEN, D/S Rampura has downloaded the data and after rectifying the connection, the meter has been working in correct condition. After checking, the meter has been again sealed. AAE who was present at the spot, had sealed the MTC and CTC. Carbon was found on the Y-Phase of the meter and accordingly, the meter was found running slow by 26.56%. The meter was checked after putting the load of 40.61 kw by RS & EC and on checking, the meter was found running slow by 26.56%. It has been found on internal inspection of the meter that only 40.61 kw load was put on the Y-Phase of the meter.” This checking report has been duly signed by the complainant as well as the checking staff. 8. The complainant has filed objections which were duly decided by the Designated Authority after giving him opportunity of being heard, the amount so raised to the tune of Rs.2,05,070/-, was reduced to Rs.33,630/- vide Ex.C-11. 9. Sh. Bhola Singh, SDO, PSPCL, Rampura City Sub Division has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R-1 that the premises of the complainant had been checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 09.04.2011 in the presence of the complainant and on checking, carbon was found on the Y-Phase of the meter and accordingly, the meter was found running slow by 26.56%. The checking report was prepared at the spot by the responsible officials of the opposite parties and the complainant himself had signed the said checking report as token of its correctness. To this effect, Ranjit Singh, Sr. XEN, Enforcement II, PSPCL, Bathinda has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R-2 that the premises of the complainant had been checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 09.04.2011 in the presence of the complainant and on checking, carbon was found on the Y-Phase of the meter and accordingly, the meter was found running slow by 26.56%. The checking report was prepared at the spot by the responsible officials of the opposite parties and the complainant himself had signed the said checking report as token of its correctness and on account of his having received the copy of the same which was supplied to him at the spot. When the carbon was cleaned from the Y-phase of meter, it started working correctly which clearly shows that the meter has been carbonized to slow its working. 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. 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 |
