DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/10/359 of 18.5.2010 Decided on: 25.11.2010 Brij Lal son of Late Sh.Ved Parkash son of Sh.Amar Nath resident of House No.573/3, near Dhudial Khalsa School, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary, now known as Power Room through its M.D. 2. SDO/A.E.E., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., West Sub Division, Patiala, Now Power Room. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Karan Singh, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Brij Lal has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That electric connection account No.SW-53/0064 is in the name of deceased father of the complainant namely Sh.Ved Parkash son of Sh.Amar Nath and the complainant has succeeded his father and has been consuming the electric energy against the said electric connection and has been depositing the electric consumption charges with the opposite parties regularly and the same were accepted by the opposite parties without any objection. That in the year 2007, the complainant was served with a notice dated 20.6.2007 by the opposite parties and the complainant was directed to deposit Rs.9687/- on the false allegations that the electric meter of the complainant was found tampered. That after the issuance of aforesaid notice to the complainant, the officials of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant in the absence of the complainant and his other family members and removed the old electric meter and installed a new electric meter outside the premises of the complainant. That the old meter of the complainant was removed in the absence of the complainant nor the same was packed in card board box and thus the opposite parties failed to comply with the provisions of manual of India Supply Electric Act. That after the removal of old meter, the opposite parties issued another notice/letter No.1719 dated 28.1.2007 and directed the complainant to deposit Rs.29273/- on the false allegations that MS seals were found tampered by the meter inspector. That the complainant challenged the said notice No.1719 dated 28.1.2007 before the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala by filing a complaint No.CC/08/421 of 12.8.2008 and the same was disposed of by the Forum on 19.11.2008 with the following observations: “ In the result, we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/- as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant”. That after getting the certified copy of the order dated 19.11.2008 , the complainant approached to the opposite parties several times for getting the costs of Rs.1000/- as awarded by the Forum but the opposite parties did not care for the orders of the court and used to delay the matter on one pretext or the other till the end of April/2010. That the opposite parties instead of contesting the claim of the earlier complaint No.1719 dated 28.1.2007 and instead of complying with the order dated 19.11.2008, issued third notice/letter No.645 dated 13.5.2010 with the same allegations that the MS seals and body of meter of the complainant were found tampered and complainant was directed to deposit Rs.40447/-.That the opposite parties instead of affording time to file the reply to the notice dated 645 dated 13.5.2010 forcibly disconnected the electric connection of the complainant without following the proper procedure as mentioned in the Indian Electricity Supply Act. This act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and high handed ness. That the issuance of third notice/letter no.645 dated 13.5.2010 and disconnection of electric connection without any fault on the part of the complainant, caused mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled to special damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is admitted that the electricity connection No.SW-53/0064 is in the name of deceased father of the complainant namely Sh.Ved Parkash. That in the year 2007 the complainant was served with a notice No.644 dated 20.6.2010 by the opposite parties and the complainant was directed to deposit Rs.9687/- on the ground that the electric meter of the complainant was found tampered. It is wrong that the said notice was sent to the complainant on false allegations. In fact, the complainant had concealed material information regarding the above said notice. That the complainant had filed an appeal before Sh.Gurmeet Singh, PCS, Collector, Sub Division-cum-Appellate Authority under Electricity Act,2003 ,Patiala against the above said notice No.644 dated 20.6.2010 and the said appeal of the complainant was dismissed by the above said authority and was decided in favour of opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant had filed revision petition before Ld.Commissioner, Patiala Division,Patiala against the said order of Sh.Gurmeet Singh,ADC, Patiala.The said revision petition is still pending before Ld.Commissioner, Patiala division, Patiala.This fact has not been mentioned by the complainant in the present complaint. That the old meter of the complainant was removed and a new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant by the opposite parties. It is wrong that the officials of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant in the absence of the complainant and his other family members. In fact, the checking of the connection of the complainant was conducted by the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant and the electric meter of the complainant was found tampered and the same was removed and packed in the presence of the complainant. It is wrong that the old meter was removed in the absence of the complainant nor the same was packed in the cardboard box. In fact, the meter was removed in the presence of complainant and the same was packed in comply with the provisions of Electricity Act. That the notice No.1719 dated 28.1.2007 of a sum of Rs.29273/- was sent to the complainant. It is wrong that the said notice was sent on false allegations. In fact, both the MS seals were found tampered by the Meter Inspector and the said notice was sent in respect to the said tampered seals i.e. theft of electric energy. That the notice No.1719 dated 28.1.2007 was challenged by the complainant before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala by filing a complaint No.CC/08/421 of 12.8.2008 and the same was disposed off by the Forum on 19.11.2008.The said complaint was decided in favour of the complainant, but the complainant got decided the said complaint in his favour on false and frivolous ground and by cheating the opposite parties that in the said complaint the complainant had mentioned the wrong address of opposite parties. That the complainant mentioned the address of opposite parties as AEE, Punjab State Electricity Board(West),Nabha Gate,Patiala, whereas the office of the opposite party was at SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board ,West Sub Division, DCW Road, Patiala, hence at that time the Forum was summoning to the opposite party on a wrong address that is why the opposite party could not appear before this Forum and the said complaint was decided in favour of the complainant ex-parte. It is wrong that the complainant approached to the opposite parties several times for getting the cost of Rs.1000/- awarded by the Forum. That the opposite parties had issued letter No.645 dated 13.5.2010 of a sum of Rs.40447/- (also Rs.18000/- as compounding fee)totaling Rs.58447/- .In fact, the checking of the connection of the complainant was conducted in the presence of complainant, but the checking team members including Sukhminder Singh, Meter Inspector Ranjit Singh and Daljit Singh on 13.5.2010 vide checking register No.1616, page 98 and it was found by the checking team that both MVT seals were tampered and this is a direct case of theft of electric energy and the meter of the complainant was packed by the checking team in the presence of complainant and the complainant signed the checking report admitting this fact. Thereafter, the copy of the checking report was supplied to the complainant Brij Lal on spot and the said checking report was duly signed by the complainant Brij Lal admitting the fact that he had received the copy of checking report. Thereafter the opposite parties had issued letter No.645 dated 13.5.2010 to the complainant with the direction to deposit Rs.58447/-( Rs.40447/- as theft charges and Rs.18000/- as compounding charges) on account of theft of electric energy. The assessment shall be made for a period, which shall be limited 12 months, immediately preceding the date of inspection and according to this in the present case the assessment comes to Rs.58447/-.It is wrong that no opportunity was given to the complainant to file reply to the notice No.645 dated 13.5.2010 .In fact, the connection of the complainant was disconnected by the opposite parties due to non deposit of amount of above said notice. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The issuance of third notice No.645 dated 13.5.2010 and disconnection of electric connection was not the fault on the part of the opposite parties In fact, there was a fault on the part of the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The allegation of opposite parties is that the premises of the complainant were checked on 13.5.2010 by the raiding party and on checking found that both M&T seals were tampered with. Now the question arises whether from mere fact that M&T seals were tampered with and reaffixed, a case of theft of energy is made out? The answer is certainly not. It was incumbent upon the raiding party to install a parallel meter and should have noted difference in the energy consumed in both meters. Having not done so from the mere fact that seals were tempered with it cannot be said that theft of energy had been committed. The meter was not got checked from M&T Laboratory that it was running slow or was not running properly. In the absence of such evidence it cannot be held that complainant had committed theft of energy. On this point we are supported by the authorities HSWEB (Now HVPN) and others Vs. Bhushan Lal 2007(1) CLT 114 , Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd(HVPN) Vs.Gautam Plastic 2008(1)CLT 522 & DHBVNL Vs. Lakhmi Chand Bansal 2009(1) CLT 489. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions we are clearly of the view that the opposite parties have failed to establish their case of theft of electricity on the part of the complainant. We are also of the clear view that the opposite parties have unnecessarily drawn the complainant into prolonged litigation. 8. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:25.11.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
