DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/10/391 of 26.5.2010 Decided on: 25.11.2010 Jasbir Singh son of Attar Singh, resident of Bagichi Het Ram, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.(Powercom) through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Assistant Executive Engineer, West Sub Division(Powercom),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: Sh. K.S.Pruthi, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh. H.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Jasbir Singh 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 a domestic electric connection bearing account No.SW47/70 has been installed at the premises of the complainant. That in the month of February 2009, the electric meter of the complainant was removed from the premises of the complainant without any fault or complaint. A new electronic meter was installed in place of the old meter. That to the surprise of the complainant, the complainant received a letter no.679 dated 21.5.2010 in which a demand of Rs.25905/- and Rs.9000/- has been raised from the complainant with allegations that “both M&T seals tampered” and there is a theft of electricity, whereas the complainant has not committed any theft nor there is a chance of the same and the allegations are totally illegal and baseless. That the complainant contacted the opposite parties on 24.5.2010 and requested for the deletion of the amount, however, the opposite parties refused to delete the amount and threatened to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant without giving any further notice. That the demand vide letter No.679 dated 21.5.2010 based on report dated 28.4.2009 is illegal, null and void, against the rules and regulations framed under sales regulations and against the principles of natural justice. That the complainant has suffered much mental agony and torture at the hands of the opposite parties for deficiency in services and their callous attitude towards the complainant and other consumers of the P.S.E.B.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 complainant is having a domestic electricity connection No.SW47/70. It is wrong that in the month of February 2009, the electric meter of the complainant was removed from the premises of the complainant without any fault or complaint. In fact, the meter of the complainant was removed on 28.4.2009.It is correct that a new electric meter was installed in place of new meter. The fact is that the checking of the connection of the complainant was conducted on 28.4.2009 vide checking register No.829, page No.72. It was found by the checking team that both the seals were tampered and reaffixed and the meter was removed in the presence of complainant, but the complainant refused to sign on the checking register. The said checking was conducted by Daljit Singh and Ranjit Singh meter inspectors. This amounts to a case of direct theft of electric energy. So a memo cum notice No.679 dated 21.5.2010 was sent to the complainant for a demand of Rs.34905/-(Rs.25905/- on account of theft and Rs.9000/-as compounding fee).That the complainant received a letter No.679 dated 21.5.2010 in which a demand of Rs.25905/- and Rs.9000/- has been raised from the complainant with the allegations that both M&T seals tampered and there is theft of electricity. It is wrong that the complainant contacted the opposite parties on 24.5.2010 and requested for the deletion of amount. It is wrong and denied that the demand vide letter No.679 dated 21.5.2010 based on report dated 28.4.2009 is illegal, null and void and against the rules and regulations framed under Sales regulations and against the principles of natural justice. 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 28.4.2009 by the raiding party and on checking found that both M&T were tampered with and reaffixed. 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 | | 
