DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/10/438 of 9.6.2010 Decided on: 25.11.2010 Dev Raj Garg aged about 70 years, son of Sakhi Chand, R/o # 19,Ram Bagh Colony, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary/Chairman cum Managing Director. 2. S.D.O. West Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala. ----------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: Sarv Sh.B.M.Singh & K.S.Sidhu Advocates For opposite parties: Sh.P.S.Walia, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Dev Raj 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 the complainant is consumer of Punjab State Electricity Board having electricity connection bearing A/c No.P11SW360035K which is installed at the residential premises of the complainant at # 19,Ram Bagh Colony, Patiala,for the last more than 25 years. The complainant is using the supply of electricity for the domestic purposes only and is paying the charges for the consumption of energy on the said connection regularly and nothing is pending against him. The sanctioned connected load is only 2.74KW only.That two officials of the opposite parties came at premises of the complainant on 22.5.2010 at about 11.00AM when there was no electricity supply due to power cut and checked the meter of the complainant, which was functioning properly. However, they alleged that the meter is not functioning properly and it seems that there is some defect in it and is not giving correct reading. They also misbehaved with complainant when the complainant tried to convince them that the meter is absolutely OK and he or any family member has never interfered with the meter which is installed outside the premises of the complainant and shown them the electricity bills which are on higher side as compared to connected load. They have disconnected the connection of the complainant and took the electricity meter with them openly without packing it in any box. Neither they have got the box sealed nor got the signature on any seal from the complainant or his representative. That the complainant was shocked when he received a demand notice No.693 dated 24.5.2010 from the opposite party no.2 alleging therein that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked on 22.5.2010 by Sarv Sh.Ranjit Singh and Daljit Singh, Meter Inspectors and as per their report “Both M&T seals found tampered”. On the basis of the said false report, the opposite parties have raised a demand of Rs.50608/- as theft of energy and Rs.24000/- as compounding amount totaling Rs.74608/- and directed to deposit the same within a period of 7 days. That the connected load of the complainant is only 2.74KW,meaning thereby that a sum of Rs.9000/- is required to be charged as compounding amount on the alleged theft as per rules whereas the opposite parties with ulterior motive have levied Rs.24000/- as compounding amount which is on a very higher side. That the complainant made a representation against the ibid demand notice before the opposite party no.2 on 31.5.2010 but the opposite party no.2 refused to consider the same and directed the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.74608/- within the stipulated period, otherwise they will take further necessary action under rules. That the demand jot ice dated 24.5.2010 is illegal, ultra virus, malafide, without jurisdiction and is liable to be ignored and quashed. That the opposite parties have caused huge loss and mental agony by issuing the said illegal demand notice dated 24.5.2010 and the order of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice as such the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.20000/-from the opposite parties. 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 officials checked the premises of the complainant on 22.5.2010 at about 11.00AM.That the premises of the complainant were checked on 22.5.2010 by Er.Sukhminder Singh, AEE, West Sub Division PSPCL alongwith Meter Inspector Ranjit Singh and Daljit Singh and both M&T seals of the meter were found tampered and pasted from back side in screw. The checking report was duly prepared at the spot which was signed by the consumer, who remained present throughout the checking, in token of its correctness and copy was also received by him. It is denied that the demand raised is illegal, ultravires, malafide, without jurisdiction and is liable to be ignored and quashed. The demand is legal as per the checking and more over the checking report was duly signed by the complainant in token of its correctness. There is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation. 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 22.5.2010 by the raiding party and on checking found that both M&T seals were tampered with and pasted from back side. Now the question arises whether from mere fact that M &T seals were tampered with and pasted from back side, 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 | | 
