DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No. CC/10/344  of 13.5.2010     

                                                Decided on:      25.10.2010

Mohinder Singh s/o Sh.Amar Singh r/o 44, Azad Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.

2.                 Sub Divisional Engineer, North Sub Division, P.S.P.C.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:     Sh.Inderjit Singh Shah, Advocate   

For opposite parties:     Sh.Pawan Puri,Advocate

                                         ORDER

SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                                      Complainant Mohinder 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 the complainant is holding a domestic electric connection bearing account No.P455R 2788874 issued in his name by the opposite parties. That the complainant has received a notice bearing No.584 dated 9.4.2010 wherein it has been alleged that the meter of the complainant has been checked and an amount of Rs.16595/- has been demanded including compounding charges. It has been alleged in the said notice that the complainant was committing theft of electricity by tampering the ME seals of the meter. That the alleged demand vide memo dated 9.4.2010 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant and is not liable to pay any such amount. That the complainant never made any theft of the electricity as alleged in the notice dated 9.4.2010. The premises of the complainant were never inspected in his presence or in presence of any of his family members. No person of the neighbours was also joined at the time of the alleged checking nor any name has been mentioned in the checking report in whose presence the checking was made by the opposite parties. That the notice so issued is false and fabricated and is with the malafide intention. That the opposite parties have threatened to recover the amount from the complainant forcibly and illegally and to disconnect the supply for which the opposite parties have no right, title or authority. That the complainant approached and requested the opposite parties to withdraw the said letter dated 9.4.2010 and not to disconnect the electricity connection and not to recover the said amount from the complainant, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. That the meter of the complainant has been affixed outside of the residence and the complainant has no concern with it.That due to issuance of the said illegal notice and raising the illegal demand by the opposite parties the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and as such the complainant is entitled to damages, costs of litigation etc. etc. 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 a consumer of the Board of the connection in dispute. It is also admitted that no other amount except the amount in dispute.That the connection of the complainant was checked by the checking squad on 6.4.2010 and had found that the consumer was committing theft of electricity energy by tampering M.E.seals of the meter. The connection was checked in the presence of representative of the consumer namely Harmeen Singh, who has countersigned the checking report in token of correctness of such checking conducted by the checking squad of the opposite parties. The meter of the consumer will be changed and will be packed in a card board box. The removed meter is being got checked from the M.E.Lab by issuing a notice to the consumer. The consumer shall be informed the date and time of checking of meter in the M.E.Lab.The findings of the M.E.Lab shall be binding on both the parties. The Board shall take the action strictly as per results of checking of meter in the M.E.Lab. It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties have issued a notice under Section 135 of the Act to the consumer vide which demand of Rs.16595/- has been raised against the consumer as penalty for committing theft of energy. It is an admitted fact that the demand has been raised on the ground that the consumer was committing theft of electricity energy. It is denied that there is any illegality in raising the demand or the consumer is  not liable to make the payment of the same to the opposite parties. It is denied that the premises of the complainant were never inspected or no checking was conducted by the checking squad. The connection was checked in the presence of representative of the consumer namely Harmeen Singh, who has countersigned the checking report in token of correctness of such checking conducted by the checking squad of the opposite parties. The Board has the right and authority to recover the amount from the complainant. It is denied that the complainant has ever approached the opposite parties. It is denied that the complainant has suffered in any manner. It is denied that the complainant has ever visited the office of the opposite parties or no body has listened to the complainant. In fact, the complainant was afforded the opportunity to file the objections against the demand raised by the assessing officer of the opposite parties and the complainant was directed to file the objections before the S.E.Patiala but the complainant failed to file any objections. It is a settled law that once an opportunity has been afforded to the consumer for filing the objections etc. and the consumer has failed to avail the same then the consumer is estopped to raise any objection before any authority or court. The non filing of objections by the consumer amounts to admission of guilt. It is denied that the notice issued by the opposite parties is illegal etc.in any manner. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to any relief. 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 complainant has 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 6.4.2010 by the raiding party and on checking found that both the ME seals of the meter were tampered with. Now the question arises whether from mere fact that ME seals were tampered with, 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.

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 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:25.10.2010.

                                                                             President

                                                                             Member

                                                                             Member