DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.379 of 23-08-2010 Decided on 21-02-2011
Jaswant Singh, aged about 40 years, son of Sh.Gurmukh Singh, resident of Sanguana Basti, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its C.M.D. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited., Sub Urban, Sub Division, Multania Road, Bahtinda, through its SDO/XEN. ......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.Lalit Garg, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.J.P.S.Brar, counsel for the 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 domestic electric connection bearing No.B-14-BS-160088N installed in his residential premises. The complainant has alleged that the meter installed in his premises was OK and the average consumption of the complainant always remained upto Rs.500/- bio-monthly which the complainant has been regularly depositing. He had been paying all the bills issued by the opposite parties from time to time and nothing is due against him. The opposite parties have issued a notice/memo bearing No.2402 dated 27.11.2008 (wrongly mentioned 27.11.2002 in the memo) raised a demand of Rs.15,310/- from the complainant on the pretext that the connection of the complainant was checked and it was found that the seals and body of the meter were tampered and it was found opened. In this way, the complainant was committing theft of electricity. The complainant has further alleged that he was neither indulged in committing theft of electricity nor tampered with the seals of body of the meter. He has neither any technical knowledge regarding the same nor any such technical instrument has been recovered from the premises of the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that the seals were intact and the meter was taken into possession by the officials of the opposite parties without packing and sealing the same in cardboard box. No legal and valid checking was ever conducted by the officials of the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant. Hence, the checking report is not binding on the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he has filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act but the said complaint was dismissed by this Forum and the complainant was directed to file objections against the impugned notice/memo of provisional order of assessment before the opposite parties vide order dated 28.05.2009. The complainant filed objections against the abovesaid impugned notice/memo before SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Bathinda on 11.06.2009 which was duly received by the opposite party No.2 on 12.06.2009 but the opposite party No.2 has passed the final order of assessment vide memo No.322 dated 10.06.2010 and alleged that the complainant did not file objections against the said provisional order of assessment and directed the complainant to deposit the amount demanded by the opposite parties through provisional order of assessment. The complainant has challenged the memo No.322 dated 10.06.2010. The complainant has filed an application to the officials of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 18.08.2008 and requested the opposite parties that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant has been burnt due to rain and on the request of the complainant, the opposite parties changed the said meter vide MCO No.74011 dated 22.08.2008 effected on 15.09.2008 and the same meter installed in the premises of the complainant was taken by the officials of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited without packing and sealing it in the cardboard box as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not obtained the signatures of the complainant or any of his representative on the seals. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint to seek directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned notices dated 24.11.2008 and 10.06.2010 and to quash the demand raised by the opposite parties alongwith cost and compensation. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant was indulged in theft of electricity by tampering both the ME seals and body of his electric meter installed in his premises. The complainant had opened the meter in an authorized manner and approached the counter of the meter and in this way, he has been controlling the supply of the meter and he unauthorizedly caused the obstruction of the electricity. The above mentioned obstructions of the electricity were observed in the ME Lab by Addl. S.E. Enforcement, Sh.Rakesh Goyal and Sr. XEN ME Lab, Bathinda in the presence of JE, ME Lab and JE Surinder Pal of distribution Sub Urban, Bathinda. The meter was brought in ME Lab by Surinder Pal, JE. The said meter was removed from the premises of the complainant as per rules of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. In the ME Lab, it was found that this is a case of theft of electricity. The officials of the opposite parties comprising JE Sh. Parveen Kumar who affected MCO and other officials have no ill-will against the complainant. Earlier the complainant had filed a complaint before this Forum and it has directed the complainant to file objections against the provisional demand and the opposite party was ordered to give hearing to the complainant. The complainant after filing objections, has failed to appear before the opposite party No.2 despite receiving the memo No.104 dated 10.05.2010 and a letter was sent to the complainant. Sh.Ajaib Singh an employee of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. approached the complainant, Jasbir Kaur wife of the complainant was present at house, refused to take the notice dated 10.05.2010. The complainant failed to appear before the designated authority for settling the objections. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the meter No.1104122 which was installed in the premises of the complainant was removed vide MCO No.188/74011 dated 22.08.2008 as it was got burnt. The abovesaid meter was replaced by new electric meter No.766657. The old meter was removed and the new meter was installed as per rules of the opposite parties. After removing the burnt of the meter, it was checked in ME Lab and it was observed that the complainant has been committing theft of electricity by tampering the meter. He has been paying the less amount for consumption of electricity than his actual consumption. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the demand of Rs.15,310/- vide memo No.2402 dated 27.11.2008 and final order bearing memo No.322 dated 10.06.2010 was issued as per rules of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. 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 has challenged the provisional order of assessment bearing memo No.2402 dated 27.11.2008 for Rs.15,310/-. He had earlier filed a compliant before this Forum which was dismissed and the complainant was directed to file objections against the said notice/memo of provisional order of assessment before the opposite parties vide its order dated 28.05.2009. The opposite parties without giving him an opportunity of being heard, issued a impugned notice dated 10.06.2010. The meter installed in the premises of the complainant was burnt and he has filed an application dated 18.08.2008 and requested the opposite parties to change the said meter. The opposite parties changed the said meter vide MCO No.74011 dated 22.08.2008 effected on 15.09.2008 and the same meter installed in the premises of the complainant was taken by the officials of the opposite parties without packing, sealing and obtaining the signatures of the complainant or any of his representative. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that the demand raised from the complainant is genuine one as both the ME seals and body of the meter were tampered with. The complainant opened the meter in an unauthorized manner by approaching the counter of the meter to control the supply of the meter by causing unauthorized obstructions. The same was observed in the ME Lab. The complainant has earlier filed complaint before this Forum, the Forum directed the complainant to file objections against the provisional demand and the opposite party was ordered to give hearing to the complainant. The complainant had filed objections but he had failed to appear before the opposite parties despite receiving the memo No.104 dated 10.05.2010 and a letter was sent to the complainant and an employee namely Sh. Ajaib Singh went to the house of the complainant, his wife Jasbir Kaur was present but she refused to take the notice dated 10.05.2010. The old meter was replaced by new meter. After removing the burnt meter, it was checked in ME Lab and was observed that the complainant has been committing theft of electricity by tampering the meter and he has been paying the less amount for consumption of electricity than his actual consumption. The complainant had filed objections but had failed to appear on the given date of hearing. The demand of Rs.15,310/- subsequently became final vide memo No.322 dated 10.06.2010. 7. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the complainant has written an application to the opposite parties that his meter has been burnt due to rain and has requested to change that meter and he is ready to pay the fee of new meter. On receiving this letter, his meter was changed. A perusal of Ex.C-10 shows that the complainant deposited Rs.320/- as fee of burnt meter and it has been specifically written on Ex.C-10 that “No Report of ME seals are broken”. 8. Admitted facts of both the parties that the meter was burnt and it has been changed vide MCO No.74011 dated 22.08.2008 Ex.C-11. The opposite parties have placed on file Ex.R-4 in which they have written the complainant has to appear before in their office to present his case but no receiving of this letter has been shown. The name of Jasbir Kaur is written in the same hand writing. No dispatch register has been placed on file to show that how this letter has been sent to the complainant. A perusal of Ex.R-7 i.e. ME Lab report, this report has been sent by four officers of the opposite parties but only one officer has filed an affidavit with regard to this report which has not been signed by the complainant. A perusal of this checking report shows that the meter has been taken in unpacked condition to ME Lab from the presmises of the complainant which is violation of the rules and regulations of the opposite parties themselves. It has been specifically mentioned on this report that the meter was not packed and checked in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant. Hence, the demand raised by the opposite parties is unlawful. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, it has been found that the meter was changed on the request of the complainant as it was burnt due to rain. The meter was removed, it was not sealed, packed and the signature of the complainant were not obtained. Moreover, the complainant was not given an opportunity of being heard. The meter was taken into possession in unpacked condition and checked in the absence of the complainant. Therefore, the ME Lab report is not valid. 10. Hence, 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. Therefore, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the impugned notices dated 27.11.2008 Ex.R-6 and 10.06.2010. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 21-02-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member | 
