DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.69 of 03-02-2011 Decided on 13-06-2011
Surinder Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Sh. Pirthi Chand, Resident of Phul Road, Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its C.M.D. AEE/SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, 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. 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, installed in his premises having sanctioned load of 78.97 kw for earning his livelihood. The said connection of the complainant was disconnected and the same had been got restored on 17.03.2010 and the complainant has been paying the bills regularly. The complainant received a memo No.600 dated 12.05.2010 for a sum of Rs.9,39,629/- from the opposite parties on the basis of checking report No.6-A/103 dated 11.05.2010 by Senior Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Rampura, Asstt. Engineer, Urban & Rural, Rampura that the complainant found committing theft of electricity by badly tampering the seals of the meter as well as body of the meter and number one segment of the meter was not coming and R-Phase was dead. Potentials and C&T of yellow and blue phase were exchanged. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that the complainant had never indulged in committing theft of electricity as he has been regularly paying the bills, issued by the opposite parties time to time; the meter reading has been recorded by SDO/JE-1 but no such report regarding the status of the meter has been ever pointed out. The status of the meter has been shown as 'O' in all the bills rather the complainant had himself informed the SDO to get the meter checked and there is no question of committing any theft of electricity by the complainant. All the seals on the MCB and meter were intact and it has been wrongly alleged in the impugned notice/memo that the seals have been tampered with whereas the SDO alongwith other staff had themselves fiddled with the meter on the pretext of alleged checking. Before checking, the said SDO had obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank papers with assurance that the said meter installed in the premises of the complainant shall be replaced with new one on the next morning i.e. on 12.05.2010 and later on mis-utilized the said blank signed papers. The complainant had submitted a representation dated 12.05.2010 to the Executive Engineer, Rampura Phul as well as Superintending Engineer, Bathinda against the said SDO, Rampura. The complainant has further alleged that the opposite parties have violated the provisions of circular No.8/99 and 45/97 whereby all the meters removed are to be got checked from the ME Lab after getting the same sealed and packed and only thereafter the impugned demand could be raised. The opposite parties had raised the said demand without getting the meter sealed, packed and has not got checked from the ME Lab. The meter in question had been installed on 17.03.2010 and the MCB of the meter had been sealed by the officials of the opposite parties. The meter reading was taken by the SDO/JE-1 of the opposite parties on 08.05.2011 whereas the alleged checking has been manipulated on 11.05.2011. The complainant has further alleged that the impugned demand is highly exaggerated and exorbitant as the officials of the opposite parties have raised the said demand for the period of six months whereas the meter in the premises of the complainant has been installed only on 17.03.2010 and the meter reading has been recorded on 10.04.2010. No opportunity of being heard has been ever afforded to the complainant. After receiving the said notice/memo, the complainant filed objections before Superintending Engineer of the opposite parties and the same was decided by the Designated Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Engineer, Distribution Division, Bathinda on 21.05.2010 without providing him any opportunity of being heard. On the basis of impugned order dated 21.05.2010, the opposite parties issued a fresh notice No.1026 dated 25.05.2010 for a sum of Rs.3,42,592/- w.e.f. 17.03.2010 and also got registered a false case u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 vide FIR No.25 dated 24.05.2010 at Police Station APT, Bathinda. The complainant has alleged that he neither committed any theft of electricity nor he ever tampered with the seals and body of the meter. The complainant under forced circumstances, deposited the said amount of Rs.3,42,592/- with the opposite parties under protest on 25.05.2010 and also deposited Rs.450/- as restoration charges. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that on 19.09.2009, an FIR No.164 had been registered against the complainant and his factory had been sealed and the electricity connection had been disconnected on the directions of the SDM Phul and thereafter, as per the instructions, the said connection was re-connected on 17.03.2010. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to check the meter at it was running slow. On 11.05.2010, the connection of the complainant had been checked by the officials of the opposite parties and it had been found that the current was not passing in one segment of the meter. The Red Phase terminal of the meter was checked and found that there was no supply on the same as it was dead. In the yellow phase CT of Blue Phase potential had been inserted and in the Blue Phase CT, yellow phase potential had been inserted. It has also been found that the ME and paper seals on the meter body had been badly tampered. So, it was a case of theft of electricity as the complainant was using electricity unauthorizedly. The checking report had been made at the spot. The complainant who was present at the spot had signed the checking report in token of its correctness and on account of his having received the copy of the same. Accordingly, 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.600 dated 12.05.2010 for Rs.9,39,629/- which had been calculated as per rules (i.e. LxDxHxF % = Units x Tariff x 2 x 12 months) as the recoverable amount and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.7,79,700/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. The complainant had been further asked that in case, he did not agree with this provisional order, he could file objections if any, within 15 days from the date of notice with SE/Dy CE DS Circle, Bathinda. The complainant filed the objections on 18.05.2010 and the Designated Authority gave a personal hearing to the complainant on 20.05.2010, vide its order dated 21.05.2010, decided the matter and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.3,42,592/-. The complainant fully agreed to the amount assessed, deposited the same without any protest. As such, the complainant deposited the amount voluntarily, he is barred to file the present complaint. After a period of six months, the meter of the complainant was sent back to the ME Lab as the dispute had been finally settled and even as per the checking of the meter done in the ME Lab, the theft had been confirmed with regard to the working of the meter. The opposite parties have also taken the support of law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (DB) in case titled Kamal Kumar Vs. PSEB, 2009 (II) RCR 815. 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.600 dated 12.05.2010 for a sum of Rs.9,39,629/- for his electric connection bearing A/c No.B-61 MS 610149N, installed in his premises having sanctioned load of 78.97 kw on account of checking dated 11.05.2010 by Senior Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Rampura, Asstt. Engineer, Urban & Rural, Rampura vide checking report No.6-A/103. The complainant was found committing theft of electricity by tampering the seals and the body of the meter. The number one segment of the meter was not coming and R-Phase was dead, potentials and C&T of yellow and blue phase were exchanged. Earlier, the connection of the complainant was disconnected and restored on 17.03.2010 and the complainant has been paying the bills regularly. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds. The complainant had submitted the representation dated 12.05.2010 to the Executive Engineer, Rampura Phul and Superintending Engineer, Bathinda against the said SDO, Rampura. The complainant has levelled many allegations against the opposite parties that the opposite parties have violated the provisions of circular No.8/99 and 45/97 whereby all the meters removed are to be got checked from the ME Lab, after getting these sealed and packed and only thereafter, the impugned demand could be raised. The old meter has not been got checked from the ME Lab, which is violation of provisions of regulation No.64.6 of Supply Regulations of Electricity Act, 2003. The complainant has further alleged that the meter reading has been recorded by the SDO/JE-1 on 08.05.2011 whereas the alleged checking has been done on 11.05.2011. The opposite parties have raised a demand of 6 months whereas the meter in the premises of the complainant has been installed only on 17.03.2010 and the meter reading recorded on 10.04.2010. After receiving the said notice/memo, the complainant filed objections before Superintending Engineer of the opposite parties and the same were decided by the Designated Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Engineer, Distribution Division, Bathinda on 21.05.2010. On the basis of its order dated 21.05.2010, the opposite parties issued a fresh notice No.1026 dated 25.05.2010 for a sum of Rs.3,42,592/- w.e.f. 17.03.2010 and an FIR No.25 dated 24.05.2010 was lodged at Police Station APT, Bathinda. The complainant has further submitted that under forced circumstances, he had deposited the amount of Rs.3,42,592/- with the opposite parties under protest on 25.05.2010 and also deposited Rs.450/- as restoration charges. 6. On the other hand, the opposite parties have submitted that on 19.09.2009, an FIR No.164 had been registered against the complainant and his factory has been sealed and the electricity connection has been disconnected on the directions of the SDM Phul. Thereafter, the said connection was re-connected on 17.03.2010. On 11.05.2010, the electric connection of the complainant had been checked by the officials of the opposite parties and it had been found that the current was not passing in one segment of the meter and the Red Phase terminal of the meter was checked and found that there was no supply on the same and it was dead. In the yellow phase CT, the Blue Phase potential had been inserted and in the Blue Phase CT, yellow phase potential had been inserted. The ME seals and paper seals of the meter body had been tampered. The checking report had been made at the spot in the presence of the complainant who had signed the checking report without any protest in token of its correctness and on account of his having received the copy of the same. According to the rules and regulations of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., the opposite parties issued a provisional order of assessment No.600 dated 12.05.2010 for a sum of Rs.9,39,629/- for unauthorized use of electricity to the complainant and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.7,79,700/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. The complainant had been further asked that in case, he did not agree, he could file objections if any, within 15 days from the date of notice with SE/Dy CE DS Circle, Bathinda. The complainant filed the objections before the Designated Authority on 18.05.2010. The Designated Authority gave a personal hearing to the complainant on 20.05.2010 which was decided. The Designated Authority vide its order dated 21.05.2010, reduced the amount to Rs.3,42,592/- which the complainant had deposited without any protest. The opposite parties have further submitted that once the complainant deposited the amount voluntarily, after a period of six months, the meter of the complainant was sent back to the ME Lab as the dispute had been finally settled and according to the checking done in the ME Lab, the theft has been confirmed which further authenticated the checking done by the officials of the opposite parties. 7. A perusal of checking report Ex.C-2 shows that:- “Paper seal of Harbans Lal AAE dated 07.04.2009 – 035222 has been broken. PC-2099754 has been broken. PSEB0033JR-66046P MS 137 ks x 2/ms 06-2ks 11945 PP Missing On the spot, the current was not passing in one segment of the meter and the current was passing in 2,3 segment of the meter. When R-Phase potential terminal of the meter was checked and it was found that there was no supply on the same. Thus, the R-Phase of the meter was found to be dead. On checking, it was also found that in the yellow phase CT, the blue phase potential had been inserted and in the blue phase CT, yellow phase potential had been inserted. During checking, it was also found that ME seals and paper seals on the meter body had been badly tampered. So, it is a case of theft of electricity. The complainant-Surinder Kumar who was present at the spot, had accepted the above said checking. The meter had been packed and sealed in the Cardboard box vide paper seal No.818260, 818261 which was duly signed by the consumer. The action to be taken according to rules and regulations of the Board.” 8. The checking report Ex.C-2 is duly signed by the complainant and the checking has been done in the presence of the complainant. The meter was removed and duly packed in the Cardboard box and the paper seal No.818260, 818261 were affixed. The complainant has also signed these paper seal. Ex.C-8, a letter written by Surinder Kumar to the opposite parties in which, he has specifically mentioned that somebody has tampered the meter of the complainant. The complainant had particularly written in this letter that he does not know who has tampered the meter and he is not responsible for that. Before that he moved an application Ex.C-13 which is reproduced as under:- “A notice No.1026 dated 25.05.2010 for a sum of Rs.3,42,592/- had been issued which was not accepted to me. When, I asked the SDO to come in my factory, he asked me to deposit Rs.3,42,592/- and he refused to give connection from RO and I was compelled to deposit Rs.3,42,592/- for running the factory. They demanded illegal gratification from me and if not paid, they will take action against me.” 8. The contention of the complainant that his meter has been tampered by somebody, is not tenable as nobody except him, has benefits of such meter. The complainant has filed objections before the Designated Authority for the review of theft assessment order. Earlier, on 19.02.2009, an FIR No.164 had been registered against the complainant and his factory had been sealed and the electricity connection had been also disconnected by the directions of the SDM Phul. It was re-connected again with the directions of the opposite parties on 17.03.2010. Thereafter, he approached the opposite parties and made a request that his meter was running slow and as such, the same may be checked. The checking was done on 11.05.2010 and it had been found that the current was not passing in one segment of the meter. The Red Phase terminal of the meter was checked and there was no supply on the same and it was dead. It was also found that in the yellow phase CT, Blue Phase potential had been inserted and in the Blue Phase CT, yellow phase potential had been inserted. The ME and paper seals on the meter body had been badly tampered. The demand of Rs.9,39,629/- was raised and Rs.7,79,700/- for compounding the offence to avoid criminal proceedings. The complainant filed objections before the Designated Authority and after giving him a proper opportunity of being heard and present his case, the Designated Authority vide its order dated 21.05.2010 decided the matter and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.3,42,592/-. The complainant fully agreed to the same, had made the payment of the same as assessed without any protest. The complainant deposited the amount voluntarily. Thereafter, a period of six months, the meter of the complainant was sent back to the ME Lab as the dispute had been finally settled and even as per the checking of the meter done in the ME Lab, the theft has been confirmed. The allegation levelled by the complainant that the opposite parties demanded illegal gratification is also not tenable as no such documentary proof has been placed on file to prove his version. Moreover, his allegation that the opposite parties got signed on blank papers is also not tenable as the complainant is an educated person, he must have signed the documents after going through their contents. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that the complainant has failed to prove his allegations that the memo has been wrongly issued to him and he was not committing theft of electricity. Therefore, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced 13.06.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
