BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 825 of 20.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          15.9.2011

Harinder Kaur @ Harvinder Kaur aged about 58 years wife of Sh.Wirsa Singh R/o House No.32-C,New Lal Bagh, Colony, Opposite Polo Ground, Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

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

2.                 S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala Cantt, Patiala near Gurmat College, Patiala.

3.                 Xen Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala West Division, Near Railway Phatak No.23, Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     None

For opposite parties:     Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is a consumere of the electricity connection bearing account No.P14MF 290284P.The complainant has been depositing the charges of the electricity regularly.

2.       On 16.9.2010 when the complainant and the members  of his family were not present in the house that the officials of the ops had come in the street.The meter of the complainant was checked in the presence of a passer by.The meter of the complainant was removed from the spot and the checking report wasgot signed from a passer by and the copy of the checking report was thrown

3.       When the complainant came to his house in the evening, she found the electricity connection to have been disconnected and found the copy of the checking report lying there in which it was mentioned tht the ME seals of the meter were tampered .The meter of the complainant was checked in the absence of the complainant and that it was a case of theft.The meter was installed outside the house on a pole.

4.       On 17.9.2010, the complainant received provisional order of assessment with regard to unauthorised use of the electricity, issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003( for short the Act of 2003) having disclosed that the presies of the complainant were checking by the staff of op no.1 on 16.9.2010 and that it was found that the complainant was using the electricity unauthorizedly6 having tampered with the ME seals. A demand of Rs.45212/- was raised. Further she was asked to deposit thecompoluding fee ofRs.18000/- to avoid the criminal action.

5.       The complainant has described the order of provisional assessment to be wrong and to have been issued against the principle of natural justice.

6.       On receipt of the order of provisional assessment, the complainant apporached the ops who was directed to approach the Forum. Accordingly, the complainant  approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act) for quashing the demand of Rs.45212/- qua the checking made by the officials of the ops being illegal; to direct the ops not to register an FIR for initiating criminal proceedings against the complainant and also to award her Rs.20,000/- as the fee npaid by her to her counsel which also includes the compensation on account of harassment.

7.       On otice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked by SDO Deepak Kumar and JE Jiwan Parkash vide checking register entry no.756 on 16.9.2010 and it was found by the checking team that the ME seals of the meter were found tampered. The electricity meter was removed and packed in a card board box duly sealed in the presence of the complainant. The representative of the complainant had also signed the checking report.

8.       On the basis of the checking report demand of Rs.63212/- vide memo No.393 dated 17.9.2010 was raised under Section 135 of the Electricity Act of 2003, Rs.45212/- on account of theft of the energy and Rs.18000/- as compounding fee in compliance with the Punjab State Regulatory Commission( Electricity Supply ode and Related Matters Regulations 2007). After controverting the other allegations of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

9.       In support of her case, the complainant produced in evidence her sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C5 and her learned counsel closed the evidence.

10.     On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of SDO Jatinder Garg of East Commercial Division of the P.S.P.C.L, Ex.R4, the sworn affidavit of JE Jiwan Parkash of West Commercial Division, P.S.P.C.L. alongwith documents, Exs.R2  to R3 and R5 and closed their evidence.

11.     The ops filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the  ops none having appeared on behalf of the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.

12.     Ex.R2, is the copy of the checking report dated 16.9.2010 as got proved by the ops with the assistance  of the sworn affidavit,Ex.R1 of SDO Jatinder Garg, East Commercial, Division,P.S.P.C.L. and Ex.R4 the sworn affidavit of JE. Jiwan Parkash of West Commercial Division of the PSPCL, who had conducted the checking of the connection of the  complainant on 16.9.2010. The report is shown to have been signed by the representative of the consumer. As pere the checking report, the ME seals of the meter were found tampered with. The meter was removed and packed in the presence of the consumer.It is also recorded that the meter was lying outside the house on a pole and the house being locked the connected load could not be checked.

13.     On the basis of the aforesaid checking report, ops had issued the order of assessment dated 17.9.2010,Ex.R3 also having disclosed that theme seals of the meter were found tampered with.

14.     Admittedly the electricity meter was removed from the  site and put into a card board box but the same was never got checked by the ops from the M.E.Lab in order to find out the inaccuracy or other defect in the mechanism of the same. In the case of the citation HSWEB( Now HVPN) and others Versus Bhushan Lal 2007(1)CLT 114, the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory,Chandigarh observed , “ the allegation of appellants is that the premises of respondent were checked on 13.7.1998 by the raiding party and on checking found that both M&T seals were tampered with and terminal seal was missing. Now the question arises whether from the mere fact that M&T seals were tampered with and terminal seal was missing, a case of theft of energy is made out. The answer is certainly not. It was incumbent upon on 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 meter fact that seals were tampered with, it can not be said that theft of energy had been committed. The meter was not got checked from M&T laboratory that it had been running slow or was not running properly. In the absence of such evidence it can not be held that complainant had committed theft of energy”.

15.     Similarly in the case of the citation Ram

16.     The learned counsel for the ops could not submit that in the absence of the meter having been got checked from the M.E.Lab, how it was possible for the ops to  have come to a conclusion finding that the complainant was committing theft of the energy.

17.     In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it would appear that the ops have not been able to estaboish by leading cogent and convincing evidence that the complainant was found committing theft of the energy. Consequently, we accept the complaint and quash the demand raised by the ops by virture of the order of the provisional assessment dated 17.9.2010,Ex.C5, one third amount of Rs.45212/- in case deposited by the complainant in pursuance of the order dated 21.9.2010 passed by the Forum while granting the interim relief to the complainant so as to reconnect the supply to the electricity connection of the complainant shall be refunded or adjusted in the future bills. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we also accept the complaint with costs assessed at Rs.5000/- to be paid to the complainant by the ops within one mointh on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced.

Dated:15.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President