DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.398 of 06-09-2010 Decided on 17-01-2011
Jarnail Singh, aged about 65 years S/o Sh.Nikka Singh S/o Sh. Pala Singh, resident of village Maari, Tehsil Nathana, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Nathana.
......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.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.R.D.Goyal, 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 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding SP electric connection No.96/84 for running the Atta Chakki. The complainant got a memo No.649 dated 17.08.2010 for the payment of Rs. 1,53,992/- on the basis of checking dated 06.02.2008. At the time of checking of the meter by the Enforcement, officials of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited found that it is a case of theft of electricity and as per remarks on SC No.93 dated 07.04.2008, the complainant was directed to deposit the amount within seven days after the receipt of the notice and in case of failure, his connection would be disconnected. The opposite parties removed the meter without giving him any opportunity of being heard. The complainant after receiving the alleged memo No.649 dated 17.08.2010, filed an application before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Bathinda and requested to inquire the matter and on that application, the Deputy chief Engineer passed one sided order without hearing the complainant and directed the SDO to take action under Regulation 37.2 (c) (i) of the Electricity Supply code. Further, the complainant has challenged the impugned demand of Rs.1,53,992/- on various grounds. He has alleged that the checking dated 06.02.2008 was never done in the presence of the complainant. The signatures of the complainant were obtained on the blank paper. The meter of the complainant is installed outside the Atta Chakki in the street. No opportunity of being heard was provided by the opposite parties to the complainant and had removed the meter of the complainant forcibly on the spot in the absence of the complainant. The meter was neither packed and sealed in the Card Board box nor the signatures of the complainant were obtained on the seals. The complainant further alleged that the alleged memo No.649 dated 17.08.2010 is totally time barred. The opposite parties have never issued any notice regarding the impugned demand before issuance of the memo No.649. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has not been paying the bills regularly. The connection of the complainant was checked on 06.02.2008 and the meter was removed on this checking. The meter was sealed and packed in the presence of the complainant who had signed the checking report in ME Lab, it has been found that the ME seals of the meter were tampered and the body of the meter was also opened. The meter of the complainant was found running 66.59% slow. On the basis of this checking, memo No.649 dated 17.08.2010 was issued to the complainant. After that, an another memo No.694 dated 01.09.2010 as a provisional assessment order was issued to the complainant for depositing Rs.1,53,992/-. The application was filed by the complainant before Deputy Chief Engineer. After giving him an opportunity of being heard as per rules and regulations of the Board, the final order was passed against the complainant. The opposite parties have denied the rest of paras. 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 learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant got memo No.649 dated 17.08.2010 for a demand of Rs.1,53,992/- on the basis of checking dated 06.02.2008 on the basis of theft of electricity. The complainant was directed to deposit the said amount within seven days after the receipt of the notice. The opposite parties have removed the meter of the complainant without giving any opportunity of being heard. The complainant filed an application before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and the said officer passed an order on this application and directed the SDO to take action under Regulation 37.2 (c) (i) of the Electricity Supply code.The complainant had alleged that this checking was never done in his presence and the signatures of the complainant were obtained on some blank papers. The meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant in the street. The meter was removed by the opposite parties forcible on the spot and no opportunity of being heard was provided to the complainant. The meter was neither packed and sealed in the Card Board box nor the signatures of the complainant were obtained on the seals. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the notice issued by the opposite parties for raising a impugned demand of Rs.1,53,992/- is time barred. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the connection of the complainant was checked on 06.02.2008 and the meter was removed, it was duly packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant. During checking, it was found that the ME seals of the meter were tampered and the body of the meter was also opened. The report of ME Lab has been sent to the complainant. The meter of the complainant found running 66.59% slow. On the basis of this checking report, memo No.649 dated 17.08.2010 was issued to the complainant. Thereafter, the provisional order of assessment dated 01.09.2010 vide memo No.694 for a demand of Rs.1,53,992/- was issued to the complainant. The complainant filed an application before the Deputy Chief Engineer who after giving him an opportunity of being heard and passed the final order against the complainant. 7. The checking was conducted on 06.02.2008 by the Flying Squads Ex.R-2. Thereafter, the meter was sent to the ME Lab which was checked on 07.04.2008. The meter was checked in the presence of the complainant. It has been mentioned in the ME Lab report that the meter was opened in the presence of the complainant who has also signed the checking report without raising any objections. At the time of checking, it was found that the ME seals of the meter were tampered and the body of the meter was also opened. The meter was tested in testing branch and the meter was found running 66.59% slow. On the basis of this checking report dated 07.04.2008, the provisional order of assessment dated 01.09.2010 vide memo No.694 was issued to the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,53,992/-. 8. The complainant had placed on file Ex.C-8 which is bill dated 28.06.2008. This bill has been issued for a period from 09.05.2008 to 09.06.2008 which has been issued immediately after preparing the ME Lab report. Nothing has been mentioned in this bill on account of theft of energy. The Provisional order of assessment has been issued on 01.09.2010 and a perusal of Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-14 shows that nothing has been demanded by the opposite parties on account of alleged demand. The opposite parties have all of sudden sent a demand notice for Rs.1,53,992/- to the complainant i.e. after the lapse of approximately 2 years & 4 months. The meter of the complainant is installed outside the premises of the complainant. In case, where the meter of the complainant is lying outside the premises of the complainant and as per regulation 21.2 (c), “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 the consumer, the consumer will not be responsible for the protection of the meter from theft or damage”. 9. The opposite parties have also clearly mentioned on Ex.C-16 that:- “It is certified that consumer will not be responsible for any type of damage to the meters installed outside the residential premises. The sole responsibility of these meter including theft etc., will be of the Board.” The opposite parties have issued a provisional order of assessment on 01.09.2010 as per regulation No.36.1 (g) which has been read as under:- “The provisional assessment order will be issued within forty eight hours of inspection and served upon the consumer/person in such a manner as may be prescribed by the State Government.” 10. In the present case, the provisional order of assessment has been issued after lapse a period of 2 years & 4 months. No FIR has been lodged against the complainant during the period from checking till today i.e. from 06.02.2008 till today. The opposite parties cannot recover the arrears after lapse of 2 years & 4 months. The opposite parties are debarred to recover time barred arrears from the complainant. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in case titled Shubh Timb Steels Limited (M/s) & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & Ors., 2010 (3) CPC 593, wherein, it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 8 – Electricity bill – OP raised a bill of Rs.2,56,404/- against complainant in the year 2000 – Notice for recovery was issued in 2008 after a lapse of 8 years – Time limit for recovery of arrears is only 2 years prescribed u/s 9 and 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – No reason for considerable delay explained – OP is debarred to recover time barred arrears from complainant – Amount of Rs.75,587/- recovered illegally from complainant directed to be refund alongwith 9% p.a. interest – Complaint allowed.” 11. With utmost regard and humility to the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts. 12. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.1,53,992/- raised through memo No.649 dated 17.08.2010. The complainant has already deposited Rs.52,000/- vide order dated 07.09.2010 of this Forum and has placed on file the receipt dated 10.09.2010 for Rs.52,000/- Ex.C-1. Hence, the opposite parties are also directed to refund Rs.52,000/- with interest @ 9% P.A. till its realization to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 17-01-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |