DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.308 of 14-07-2010 Decided on 25-11-2010
M/s Bharti Mobile Limited, through its Branch Head, Gajinder Singh S/o Sh. Rohitas Chand, SCF No.133, Goniana Road, 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, Goniana.
......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 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the complainant has filed the present complaint with allegations against the opposite parties that the complainant is holding and maintaining Mobile Towers through out Punjab and he is having a NRS connection No.GN16/ 477 for supply to the tower and its equipment. The complainant has been paying the bills regularly. The complainant got memo No.6231 dated 17.11.2009 received on 29.03.2010 in which, it is written that provisional assessment memo No.4271 dated 28.05.2009 was issued to the complainant and objections were heard. On getting the memo No.6231 dated 17.11.2009, the complainant got the information from the opposite parties about the alleged memo No.4271 dated 28.05.2009, it come to the notice of the complainant that false case of theft has been made by the opposite parties. The complainant filed objections on 09.04.2010 and challenged the alleged theft. The opposite parties raised a demand of Rs.5,06,530/- through memo No.4271 dated 28.05.2009 on the basis of ME Lab report, in which, it has been written that the meter of the complainant found burnt and this is case of theft. The complainant alleged that he never committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly. The complainant was not given any opportunity of being heard. The condition of the meter was neither shown to the complainant at the time of installation of meter nor at the time of removal. The complainant further alleged that the meter was neither packed/sealed in card board box nor the signatures were obtained by the opposite parties. The previous consumption of the burnt meter and new consumption calculated by the opposite parties on the basis of theft is same. The alleged checking of the meter on 25.05.2009 in ME Lab was neither done in the presence of the complainant nor the report of ME Lab was sent to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have pleaded in their joint written statement that the complainant is not holding electricity connection No.GN-16/477, this connection has been issued personally in the name of Rakesh Michael and not in the name of Bharti Mobile Limited and this connection has been issued for NRS purposes. The complainant did not pay the bills at any time. All the bills were paid by Rakesh Michael. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the Meter Reader gave the report regarding the burning of the meter and on the basis of this report, the meter was removed. It was packed in the presence of representative of Rakesh Michael. Thereafter, a notice was sent to Rakesh Michael for his presence in ME Lab on 25.05.2009. The representative of the complainant came to ME Lab on 25.05.2009 and gave his consent after signing the store challan regarding the burning of the meter and admitted that the meter has been burnt. So, it is a case of theft of energy. On the basis of the said report, provisional order of assessment No.4271 dated 28.05.2009 was issued to the consumer who did not file any objection against the provisional order of assessment No.6231 dated 17.11.2009. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant-Company M/s Bharti Mobile Limited which was being run by Branch Head Mr.Rakesh Michael got issued NRS connection No.GN16/477 for supply to the tower and its equipment and has been paying the bills. The complainant i.e. company has filed this complaint through Gajinder Singh S/o Sh. Rohitas Chand. The complainant-company had got memo No.6231 dated 17.11.2009 received on 29.03.2010 u/s 126 of Electricity Act in which it was written that the provisional assessment memo No.4271 dated 28.05.2009 was issued to the complainant and objections were heard. On receiving this memo No.6231 dated 17.11.2009, the complainant-company got the information from the opposite parties about the alleged memo No.4271 dated 28.05.2009. The opposite parties had raised a demand of Rs.5,06,530/- through memo No.4271 dated 28.05.2009 on the basis of ME Lab report. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that neither the complainant committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly, nor he was given any hearing nor objections were heard. The connection was installed outside premises of the tower. Neither the meter was packed or sealed in card board box nor the signatures were obtained by the opposite parties. The meter burnt accidentally, there was no fault of the complainant as he has not burnt the meter intentionally. Previous consumption of the burnt meter and new consumption calculated by the opposite parties on the basis of theft is same. The meter was not checked in ME Lab in his presence. Moreover, neither the ME Lab report was sent to the complainant nor the final order of assessment was issued to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the opposite parties have not followed the procedure for passing final order of assessment. The opposite parties have not followed the regulations 36 (a)(b)(c) and (d) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 notified by Punjab State Regulatory Commission. 6. The learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complainant is not consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act as the connection has been issued in the name of Bharti Mobile Limited and this connection has been issued for NRS purposes. The complainant has not paid bills at any time, all the bills were paid by Rakesh Michael. The learned counsel for opposite parties has further submitted that the Meter Reader gave the report regarding the burning of the meter and on the basis of this report, the meter was removed. It was packed in the presence of the representative of Rakesh Michael. After that a notice was given to Rakesh Michael for his appearance in ME Lab on 25.05.2009 at 10 a.m. The representative of Rakesh Michael came to ME Lab on 25.05.2009 and gave his consent after signing on store challan regarding the burning of the meter and admitted that the meter was burnt intentionally. On the basis of this report, provisional order of assessment No.4271 dated 28.05.2009 was issued to the consumer in which, the demand of Rs.5,06,530/- was raised. The complainant had filed objections on 09.04.2010 to which, the complainant has no right to file the objection. So, it was not decided till today. 7. This complaint is filed by Gajinder Singh on behalf of M/s Bharti Mobile Limited. Ex.C-2 shows that a provisional order of assessment dated 28.05.2009 was issued to Rakesh Michael and the final order of assessment was also issued in the name of Rakesh Michael dated 17.11.2009 Ex.C-3. Sh. Gajinder Singh has deposed in his affidavit Ex.C-5 that:- “The connection No.GN16/477 was obtained for and on behalf of M/s Bharti Mobile Ltd. by Shri Rakesh Michael who was branch head and left the job of the complainant so the deponent is consumer as the deponent is paying the bill so issued by the opposite parties.” A perusal of Ex.C-6 shows that this is the power of attorney in the name of Rakesh Michael dated 01.01.2003 which has been issued seven years back, nothing has been mentioned in this power of attorney that he is authorized to take an electric connection for Bharti Mobile Limited in his name. 8. Er. Jasbir Singh, AEE has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R-1 that:- “The complainant is not holding the connection No.GN16/477. This connection has been issued in the name of personally Rakesh Michael and not in the name of Bharti Mobile Limited and this connection has been issued for NRS purposes. The complainant did not pay the bills at any time. All the bills were paid by Rakesh Michal......... ...........The meter Reader gave the report regarding the burning of the meter and on the basis of this report, the meter was removed. It was packed in the presence of the representative of Rakesh Michael. After that a notice to Rakesh Michael was given for his presence in ME Lab on 25.05.2009 at 10 a.m. The representative of Rakesh Michael came to ME Lab on 25.05.2009 and gave his admission after signing on store challan regarding the burning of the meter and admitted that the meter has been burnt intentionally. So, it was a theft case. On the basis of this report, provisional order of assessment No.4271 dated 28.05.2009 was issued to the consumer, who did not file any objection against the provisional order of assessment. Then the final order of assessment No.6231 dated 17.11.2009 was issued to the consumer. On the basis of which, the demand of Rs.5,06,530/- was raised, which is legal and valid as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties.......” Sh.B.K.Jindal, ASE/CS has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R-2 that the representative of Rakesh Michael came to ME Lab on 25.05.2009 and gave his admission after signing the store challan regarding the burning of the meter and admitted that the meter has been burnt intentionally. So it was a theft case. 9. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the electric connection was in the name of Rakesh Michael, not in the name of M/s Bharti Mobile Limited. Sh. Jasbir Singh, A.E.E. S/o Sh. Jit Singh has made separate statement dated 25.11.2010 on behalf of opposite parties that:- “the concerned file regarding A/c of Sh. Rakesh Michael bearing No.B93GN160477F has been untraceable at present and as per ledger, the complainant is defaulter of Rs.3,74,180/- till today from April, 2010.” This shows that till date, the connection is in the name of Mr. Rakesh Michael not in the name of M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. The complainant, company has not placed on file any authority letter issued to Sh. Gajinder Singh who has filed the present complaint, as per Regulation 3.6.2 of Electricity Supply Regulations (amended/updated upto 31.12.2004), it was mandatory to produce on file. TPhe regulation No.3.6.2 is reproduced as under:- “In the event of applicant being a Private or a Public Ltd. Company, it shall supply a copy of the Articles of Association/Articles of Memorandum, a copy of certificate of incorporation alongwith a certified copy of extract of resolution of the Board of Directors resolved in favour of the authorized signatory for execution of 'A&A' form and other documents. Certification will be made by the Chartered Accountant of the company. The common seal of the company will be required for execution of the documents. List of the Board of Directors showing their names, aged, father/husband's name, and residential address shall be supplied. The consumer shall notify every change in the Board of Directors within one month.” No date of termination of services of Mr. Rakesh Michael from M/s Bharti Mobile Limited has been mentioned anywhere and no such document is placed on file to show that Mr. Rakesh Michael is not working with M/s Bharti Mobile Limited and why this complaint has been filed by Sh. Gajinder Singh on behalf of M/s Bharti Mobile Limited. 10. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that the electric connection No.GR16/477 is in the name of Mr. Rakesh Michael not in the name of M/s Bharti Mobile Limited. Hence, M/s Bharti Mobile Limited is not consumer to the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 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 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 25.11.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
| 
