DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.583 of 27-12-2010 Decided on 27-05-2011
Parshotam Dass Tandon, aged about 70 years son of Sh. Tara Chand son of Sh. Ram Partap, Resident of Goniana. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD. 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. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.J.P.S.Brar, 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 an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding NRS electric connection No.GM42/21. The complainant got a memo No.2413 dated 29.11.2010, received on 22.12.2010 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.76,218/- on the basis of checking report of ME Lab dated 22.11.2010 that the ME seals are tampered and it is a case of theft of electricity. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that the checking dated 22.11.2010 in the ME Lab was never made in the presence of the complainant; the alleged checking report was neither sent to the complainant nor handed over to the complainant when he went to the ME Lab; the officials of the ME Lab got signatures of the complainant on blank papers and unfilled Form; the meter was installed in the public street and neither the officials of the opposite parties came to the house of the complainant nor checked the meter in his presence; he neither committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly; the alleged theft cannot be made as the meter is installed on the road; no person can be punished for one offence, the opposite parties have issued a memo No.2413 dated 29.11.2010 of Rs.76,218/- and Rs.25,000/- for compounding the offence at the same time by threatening of arrest/FIR; the complainant did not tamper the alleged seals in the meter. Moreover, the officials of the opposite parties never pointed out the alleged tampering; the meter was neither packed nor sealed in the Cardboard box in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained by the opposite parties; no formula or explanation has been given by the opposite parties on what rate under which provision, the said amount of Rs.76,218/- has been raised; neither the final order of assessment can be made nor any demand can be raised on the basis of such invalid incompetent and unauthorized inspection and no evidence of theft was collected at the spot. The complainant has further alleged that he had purchased the property from one Prem Singh 40 years back and since than, the complainant is using the electricity and paying the bill till date. The complainant requested the opposite parties many times to withdraw the said demand but the opposite parties failed to withdraw the same. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint with prayer to seek directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the memo No.2413 dated 29.11.2010 and to pay cost and compensation. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and admitted that the connection No.GM-42/21 has been running in the name of one Prem Singh and the said consumer is indulged in theft of electricity, he has not been paying the bills as per actual consumption. The opposite parties have pleaded that on 16.10.2010, the checking was conducted by Meter Inspector & AJE and during checking, it was found that the meter installed in the Pillar Box and the clump and seals thereof were found doubtful. The checking staff removed the old meter to get it checked from the ME Lab. A detailed checking report was prepared at the site and a copy of the same was supplied to the consumer/his representative. The meter was removed, packed and sealed vide paper seal No.73 dated 16.10.2010 in the presence of consumer/his representative who put his signatures on the paper seal and it was sent to ME Lab for checking. On 29.11.2010, the said meter was checked in the ME Lab in the presence of representative of the consumer namely Gauri Shankar and before checking, seals were shown to the representative of the consumer who after satisfying with the intactness of the seals, gave his consent for checking and put his signatures at point 'A' of the checking report. The meter was checked and observed that one sealed clump of the meter was tampered with and the consumer was illegally abstracting electricity by tampering the clump and has been controlling the consumption by illegal and unauthorized means. Thereafter, the meter was repacked and handed over to the concerned JE for subsequent action. A detailed checking report was prepared at the site in the presence of representative of the consumer who put his signatures at point 'B' being satisfied with the manner. On the basis of the said checking, a memo No.2413 dated 29.11.2010 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, raising a demand of Rs.76,218/- was issued to the consumer on 21.12.2010 and asked him to deposit Rs.25,000/- for compounding the offence of theft and to file objections before the Designated Authority but instead of filing objections, he has filed the present complaint. 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 alleged that on 22.12.2010, he has received a memo No.2413 dated 29.11.2010 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.76,218/- on the basis of checking report of ME Lab dated 22.11.2010 in which, it has been specifically mentioned that the ME seals were tampered and this is a case of theft of electricity. The complainant contended that the ME Lab checking was never done in his presence; the officials of the opposite parties have taken the signatures of the complainant on blank and unfilled Form; the meter was installed in public street; the opposite parties have neither packed nor sealed the meter in the Cardboard Box in the presence of the complainant nor has obtained his signatures on the same. The complainant has purchased the said property from one Prem Singh 40 years back and has been using the electricity and has been paying the bills till date. 6. The connection No.GN-42/21 has been running in the name of one Prem Singh and he has not been paying the bills as per actual consumption. On 16.10.2010, the checking was conducted by Meter Inspector & AJE and during checking, it was found that the meter installed in the Pillar Box and the clump and seals were found doubtful. The checking staff removed the old meter to get it checked from the ME Lab. A detailed checking report was prepared at the spot and a copy of the same was supplied to the consumer/his representative. The meter was removed, packed and sealed vide paper seal No.73 dated 16.10.2010 in the presence of consumer/his representative who put his signatures on the paper seal and it was sent to ME Lab for checking. On 29.11.2010, the said meter was checked in the ME Lab in the presence of representative of the consumer namely Gauri Shankar. Before checking, the seals were shown to the said representative who after satisfying himself with the intactness of the seals, gave his consent for checking and put his signatures at point 'A' of the checking report. During checking, it was observed that one sealed clump of the meter was tampered and the consumer has been controlling the consumption by unauthorized means. The meter was repacked and handed over to the concerned JE for subsequent action. A detailed checking report was prepared at the site in the presence of representative of the consumer and he put his signatures at point 'B' being satisfied with the same. On the basis of the said checking, a memo which has been challenged by the complainant, was issued to him. He was asked to deposit Rs.25,000/- for compounding the offence of theft and to file objections before the Designated Authority but the complainant has never filed objections before the Designated Authority. 7. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the notice dated 29.11.2010 of provisional assessment Ex.C-3 has been issued in the name of Prem Singh. The bills Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-9 also shows that the bills are in the name of Prem Singh. The complainant has specifically mentioned that he has purchased the said premises from Prem Singh 40 years back, as such, he is beneficiary to the present complaint but according to regulation Nos.30.4 & 30.5 of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. of Condition of Supply which is reproduced as under:- “30.4. In the event of transfer of property due to sale/partition/ settlement/gift of the premises, the application on 'A&A' form will be made by the transferee alongwith the following documents:- Document to support the transfer. Consent letter of the previous owner for the transfer of the security deposit and ACD. In case such consent letter cannot be produced, the applicant shall deposit ACD and the security for meter. He shall also be liable to pay the outstanding, if any, against the previous consumer.
No change of name shall be effected within two years after the change in site of the connection except to his legal heirs.”
8. As per rules and regulations of Punjab State Power Corporation, it has been mentioned at page 37:- Clause '30' Change of Consumer When any person occupies a premises previously occupied by a consumer and desires to be supplied with energy, he shall, as if he were the original applicant, enter into agreement with the Board and shall, if so required, furnish ACD and security for meter to Board at prevalent rates. His installation shall be rerated by the Board so that the said person may not be held responsible for any alternation in the connected load which may have been effected by the previous consumer without the authority of the Board.” Further, the support can be taken by the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case 2010(2) CLT 558 titled Hari Prasad Vs. MU H.B.V.N.L. Panchkula & Ors wherein it has been held :- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d)(ii) – Consumer– Beneficiary – Electricity connection in the name of 'A; being used by 'H' – Except for bare averments of the complainant that he is beneficiary of the said connection, there is no other material to sustain his claim. The complainant did not get connection transferred in his name in the records of the respondents – The complainant cannot be treated as beneficiary of service provided by Op/respondent – The litigation appears to be proxy litigation on behalf of 'A; in whose name the electric connection has been issued – Complainant 'H' cannot be considered to be a consumer of the respondent.”
The complainant has not got the aforesaid connection transferred in his name so he is neither a consumer nor a beneficiary of the said connection. 9. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the complainant, they are distinguishable on facts. 10. The complainant has argued that the meter was not removed, packed and sealed in his presence whereas Ex.R-9, the paper seal is duly signed by the representative of the consumer. The meter has been sent to the ME Lab. Vide Ex.R-10 i.e. Store Challan and Ex.R-11 is the checking report in which, it has been specifically mentioned that the meter was taken out from packed and sealed box and has been checked in the ME Lab and it has been found that one clump of the meter was tampered with, the consumer was illegally abstracting the electricity by tampering the seals and has been controlling the consumption by unauthorized means. Hence, the meter was repacked and handed over to the official of the opposite parties for subsequent action. This checking report clearly shows that the ME Lab test has been done in the presence of the representative of the consumer and report has also been prepared in his presence. Before checking the meter in the ME Lab, the opposite parties issued notices to the complainant to be present before the ME Lab. From a perusal of record placed on file, it is concluded that the opposite parties after duly following their rules and regulations had found that the complainant had been using the electricity unauthorizedly. 11. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails on merits as well as the complainant is neither a consumer nor a beneficiary u/s 2(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the 'Act'. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned. '
Pronounced 27.05.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
| 
