DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.219 of 19-05-2010

Decided on 15-09-2010

Gurbans Singh son of Sh.Hakam Singh, aged about 52 years, resident of village Balahar Mehma, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.

.......Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary (now Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Patiala.).

2. Punjab State Electricity Board now Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through Senior Executive Engineer, Distribution Division, Bathinda.

......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.K.S.Dabrikhana, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.J.D.Nayyar, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. In brief, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant was holding the electricity connection bearing A/c No. SP 21/15 installed in his premises for Fish farming to earn his livelihood for his family. The complainant sold the property where the said connection was installed for Fish farming to Sh. Jagjit Singh S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh through sale deed No.2036 and to Sh. Gurjit Singh S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh through sale deed No.2035 dated 07.06.2000 and also the remaining property to the aforesaid Jagjit Singh and Gurjit Singh through sale deed No.2282 dated 13.06.2000 and the complainant left with no property at the spot. The complainant got a notice of provisional order of assessment dated 10.02.2010 from the opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs.74,432/- on account of theft of electricity. The complainant has alleged that he never indulged in committing theft of electricity and he has already sold the property about 10 years back and since he is having no concern with the alleged connection. Hence, he has filed this complaint.

2. The opposite parties on the other hand have pleaded that the complainant moved an application for disconnection of his electricity connection with the opposite parties and they disconnected the connection of the complainant and the meter was removed from the premises of the complainant and packed in card board box duly sealed as per rules of the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant. As per rules, the meter was sent to the M.E. Lab and the notices were given to the complainant to come present in M.E. Lab for checking of the meter but the complainant failed to come present in the M.E. Lab for checking. The meter was checked on 04.01.2010 in the M.E. Lab in the absence of the complainant after giving final notice. On checking, it was found that ME seals of the meter were tempered and body of the meter had also been opened and the complainant was controlling the electricity by opening the meter body and tempering the Ultra Sound welding and meter seals. He was using the electricity by unauthorized manner. The checking report was made by the M.E. Lab officers which was signed by them. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, a provisional order of assessment dated 10.02.2010 for Rs.74,432/- was issued to the complainant.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record placed on file.

5. The impugned demand has been filed on the basis of checking report dated 11.01.2010 Ex.R-8 of the M.E. Lab. English rendering of which is the meter was checked in M.E. Lab after taking it out of the sealed card board box. On its visual examination, it was found that all of its seals were tempered with Ultra Sound welding and found to be opened and body of the meter was also opened. Therefore, the consumer was controlling electricity consumption by tempering with the seals and opening Ultra Sound welding and body of the meter. Thus, this is case of theft of energy. The meter was handed over to the concerned officer of the opposite parties in safe custody after putting it again in the M.E. Lab. The above extracted report of the M.E. Lab does not show that it was sealed under the signatures of the complainant and after it was brought to the M.E. Lab. The abovesaid checking report of the M.E. Lab also does not show that it was packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative. When it was removed from the spot, there is also no other documents placed on the record that it was packed and sealed at the spot after its removal in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative.

6. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that such lapses were noticed by Hon'ble Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled HVPN & Another Vs. Ram Pal @ Ram Phal, Judicial Reports Consumer 2006 (2) (XIII) wherein, it is held:-

“Electricity Bill – Tubewell – Electric Disconnection on the request of the respondent – Not or account of failure of respondent to pay bills – After disconnection, sending the bill for Rs.3661/- was illegal – Same has been rightly quashed by the District Forum – Direction for restoring the electricity connection to the tubewell upheld.”

The precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, in case titled CESCO and Others Vs. Nirmal Chandra Nayak, Judicial Report Consumer, Appeal No.794 of 2002, 379 wherein, it is held:-

“Electricity disconnection – No evidence of tampering of meter – No opportunity afforded to complainant – Deficiency in service – Restoration of power supply ordered – Respondents directed to pay compensation and not to charge arrears dues.”

The precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Daljit Kaur 2004 (I) CPJ 48 Consumer Protection Judgment wherein, it is held:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Electricity – Energy theft – Meter disconnected without intimation – Penalty imposed – Meter not packed and sealed at time of removal from premises – No notice regarding M.E. Lab checking given to complainant – O.Ps. failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Circular at time of removal and checking of meter – Deficiency in service proved – O.P. liable to refund penalty bill with interest.”

Wherein, it has been held unanimously that the electricity meter in question is not packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant. The report of M.E. Lab cannot be relied upon to raise the demand. He has submitted, thus the report of M.E. Lab cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the case of the complainant was that the report of M.E. Lab cannot be discarded on the basis of contention of the learned counsel for the complainant as the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and its officials had no bias against the complainant.

The precedents laid down in the above authorities clearly covers the controversy in hand. Therefore, in view of the above authorities, the M.E. Lab cannot be relied upon for raising the impugned demand although the officials of the opposite parties were not biased against the complainant yet they were to prove their case in accordance with the principle of natural justice which has been violated in this case, by not removing and packing the electric meter in question in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has also contended that the complainant had also filed his representation Ex.R-4 against the provisional assessment notice to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board which did not find in favour with the latter. Therefore, the complainant is barred approaching this Forum. The Consumer Forum is a Forum in addition to other Courts, Tribunal and authorities. Therefore, if the consumer has any greviance against service provider, he can choose the Consumer Forum for the redressal of his greviance. Thus, in the instant case, the complainant had chosen this Forum instead of other authorities for redressal of his greviance.

7. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted without any order as to cost and the impugned demand of Rs.74,432/- through provisional order of assessment dated 10.02.2010 Ex.R-2 and Ex.C-4 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '

Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

15.09.2010 President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member