DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.198 of 12-05-2011 Decided on 24-08-2011
Binderpal Kaur, aged about 40 years wife of Bhupinder Singh, Prop. Balaji Filling Station Baandi, Tehsil/District, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Distribution Sub Division, Sangat.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. J.P.S.Brar, 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 electric connection No.BD35/745 for her Petrol Pump. The complainant got a memo No.963 dated 25.03.2011, received on 07.04.2011 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.47,499/- on the basis of checking report dated 25.03.2011 that the meter was running slow by 57.18% due to tampering of ME seals. The complainant filed objections before the Designated Authority, Bathinda who disposed off the objections without going through the merit of the case and directed the opposite parties to charge the amount on the lesser side according to the Electricity Supply Code vide order no.8092/94/G.C.8-A/Bathinda dated 15.04.2011. The opposite parties got the payment of Rs.47,499/- vide receipt no.546 on 19.04.2011 forcibly. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that the said checking dated 25.03.2011 was not made in the presence of the complainant; her signatures were not obtained; the said checking report dated 25.03.2011 was not sent to the complainant; she has not committed theft or used the electricity unauthorizedly; no opportunity of being heard is provided to the her; she was not called by any authority to give explanation regarding the false case of theft; Er. Ranjit Singh demanded Rs.20,000/- to hash up the matter but she has refused to pay him the said amount etc. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to refund the amount of Rs.47,499/- which the opposite parties have got deposited from him alongwith interest, cost and compensation. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that on 25.03.2011, the electricity connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite parties in the presence of the representative of the complainant and during checking, it was found that both the ME seals were tampered with and by tampering with the inner part of the meter, the complainant was controlling the electricity consumption by unauthorized means and the meter was found running slow to 57.18%. Thereafter, the connection of the complainant was disconnected and the meter was removed and sealed in the same condition and the checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of the representative of the complainant and asked him to sign the checking report but he refused to put his signatures on the checking report with malafide intention, so a copy of this checking report was pasted at the main entrance/gate of the premises in question. On the basis of this checking report, the memo No.963 dated 25.03.2011 for Rs.47,499/- was raised on account of theft of electricity and Rs.21,000/- for compounding the offence. She was also directed to deposit the demanded amount or to file objections before SE, Op.Circle, Bathinda, within 15 days. Thereafter, the complainant filed objections and she was heard personally and declined her objections vide letter/order dated 15.04.2011. The complainant being satisfied with this order, has deposited the said amount on 19.04.2011. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the said connection is NRS one and is being used to run the Petrol Pump i.e. for commercial purpose to earn huge profits. 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.963 dated 25.03.2011, on 07.04.2011 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for the demand of Rs.47,499/- on the basis of checking report dated 25.03.2011. The said checking was conducted on his electric connection No.BD35/745 which is used for the Petrol Pump. She is running the said Petrol Pump to earn her livelihood and to get commission with the help of Raghveer Singh. It is written in the said checking report that the meter was running slow by 57.18% due to tampering of ME seals. The complainant filed objections against the said memo no.963 before the Designated Authority, Bathinda who disposed off the objections according to the Electricity Supply Code vide order No. 8092/94/G.C.8-A/ Bathinda dated 15.04.2011. The opposite parties got deposited the payment of Rs.47,499/- vide receipt no.546 on 19.04.2011 forcibly under the threat of police from the complainant. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that the checking dated 25.03.2011 was neither made in the presence of the complainant nor her signatures were ever obtained; its copy has never been sent to the complainant; no provisional notice or memo regarding alleged theft has ever been sent to the complainant. The complainant has further submitted that Er. Ranjit Singh has demanded Rs.20,000/- to hush up the matter and for not making a false case of theft but when the complainant refused to accept the demand of Er. Ranjit Singh, he involved the complainant into the false case of theft etc. 6. According to the opposite parties, the connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite parties in the presence of the representative of the complainant on 25.03.2011 and during checking, they found that both the ME seals were tampered with and by tampering the inner part of the meter, the complainant was controlling the electricity consumption by unauthorized means and the meter was found running slow to 57.18%. Thereafter, the connection of the complainant was disconnected and the meter was removed and sealed, accordingly, the checking report was prepared at the spot by the checking staff in the presence of the representative of the complainant as per existing condition and thereafter, the representative of the complainant asked to sign the checking report but he refused to put his signatures on the checking report. Thereafter, on the refusal of the representative of the complainant, a copy of the checking report was pasted at the main entrance/gate of the premises of the complainant and on the basis of this checking report, the memo No.963 dated 25.03.2011 for Rs.47,499/- was raised on account of theft of electricity and Rs.21,000/- for compounding the offence. The complainant was directed to deposit the demanded amount or to file objections within 15 days. The complainant has filed objections, she was personally heard, finding no merits, her objections were declined vide letter/order dated 15.04.2011 and the complainant being satisfied with the order passed by competent authority, had deposited the said amount on 19.04.2011. The Final order has been passed by the opposite parties after considering the objections. 7. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that vide Ex.C-2, it has been specifically mentioned in order of Review of Theft Assessment Order, u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, Related to theft of electricity – Balaji Filling Station, village and post office, Bandi, Tehsil and Distt. Bathinda, bearing A/c No.BD35/745, Sub Division, Sangat that:- “According to the checking report no.39/1189 dated 25.03.2011, both the ME seals of the meter were tampered with and by tampering with the inner part of the meter, the complainant was controlling the electricity consumption by unauthorized means and the meter was found running slow to 57.18% and Raghbir Singh, the representative of the complainant was present at the spot but before signing the checking report, he has left the place. The sanctioned load of the complainant is 6.70 kw and the connected load is 3.103 kw. 8. A perusal of checking report Ex.R-10 shows that this checking report has not been signed by the representative of the complainant, it has been specifically endorsed on the checking report that the representative of the complainant refused to sign the checking report whereas in the checking report itself, it has been mentioned that Raghbir Singh was present during checking but left the spot before signing the checking report. There are two contradictory version on the checking report Ex.R-10 that:- “Raghbir Singh has left the place before signing the checking report” and “Refused to sign the checking report”. No refusal has been done by the representative of the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite parties mentioned in their reply that they have pasted the checking report outside the premises of the complainant but no such photography or videography regarding the pasting of the checking report outside of the premises of the complainant, has been placed on file by the opposite parties. 9. Ex.R-8 shows that the checking was done on 25.03.2011 and the provisional notice has been received by the complainant on 07.04.2011 i.e. after much delay. The meter of the complainant is installed outside the premises of the complainant and during checking, it has been found the meter was running slow by 57.18%. As per Regulation No.54.6 which is read as under:- “Defective/Inoperative Meter: If the meter is found to be running slow by more than 3%, it shall be replaced with a new meter. The meter on removal must be sent to the ME Lab within a maximum period of one week and accounts of the consumer shall be adjusted on receipt of the test results from the ME Lab for a period not exceeding 6 months preceding the date of checking. Compliance of these instructions shall be personal responsibility of AE/AEE/Sr.Xen concerned.” According to regulation 54.6, if the meter has been found running 3% slow, then it is mandatory to sent it in the ME Lab. In the present case, the meter is slow by 57.18% and the seals were found tampered with but it has not sent to the ME Lab. Without the report of ME Lab, the case of theft cannot be established. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.(HVPN) Vs. Gautam Plastic, 2008(1)CLT, decided on 02.011.2007 wherein it has been held that:- “The meter was not tested in the M&T Lab – No notice of testing was given to the consumer – The principles of the natural justice not followed – Complainant has not approached Nigam for compounding of the offence if any and unilaterally a penalty has been levied – Order of the Fora below allowing the complaint upheld.” Further, the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Mohan Lal, II(2007)CPJ 166 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission that :- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Electricity – Theft of energy alleged – Meter not packed and sealed in presence of consumer/his representative – No notice sent to complainant to come present in M.E.Lab. when meter was to be checked – Under rules of natural justice, meter atleast should have been tested in his presence, which has not been done – In said circumstances, demand of Rs.2,02,690/- from O.P., rightly quashed.” 10. Moreover, the meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant. According to Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, 21.2(c) which is read as under:- “The Licensee may require a meter to be installed outside the premises of a consumer and in such an event, the entire cost of installing the meter outside the premises and providing a display unit within the premises will be borne by the licensee. However, the cost of display unit will be treated as part of the meter cost while determining meter rentals. In a case where the meter/metering equipment is installed by the Licensee outside the premises of a consumer, the consumer will not be responsible for the protection of the Meter from theft or damage.” 11. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,500/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.47,499/- raised through memo No.963 dated 25.03.2011. The complainant was directed to deposit the demanded amount i.e. Rs. 47,499/- by the opposite parties which was deposited by the complainant vide receipt no.546 on 19.04.2011, the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.47,499/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 24-08-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
