DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 101 of 28-02-2011

Decided on : 17-06-2011

Prem Lata, aged about 50 years W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar, Kalra R/o H. No. 13781. Street No. 6, Ganesha Basti, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/Chairman/Secretary

2. The Superintending Engineer, Assessing Officer, OP Circle, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Bathinda.

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Cantt. Sub Division, Bathinda.

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. J D Nayyar, counsel for the opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that electric connection bearing A/c No. B 11GT35-0745K-C has been installed in the aforesaid premises of the complainant wherein she is running counselling centre in the name of Saraswati Polytechnic College. The said premises was purchased by her vide registered sale deed No. 1843 dated 27-05-2002 and after purchase, she informed the opposite parties for transferring the electric connection in her name. The complainant has been using the aforesaid electric connection and paying the electricity consumption bills so issued by the opposite parties. On 25-02-2011, the officials of the opposite parties visited her premises and after checking the meter, opined that it is a case of theft. The son of the complainant who was present there stated that he is not satisfied with the checking. No copy of checking report was supplied to the complainant despite getting signature of his son. The complainant alleged that she never indulged in theft of electricity. On the basis of checking, the opposite parties issued memo bearing No. 522 dated 25-02-2011 raising a demand of Rs. 1,14,235/- from the complainant on account of tampering with the meter. The officials of opposite parties taken away the old meter and connected the electric connection directly from the poll. The complainant immediately filed objections against the impugned demand with the Assessing Officer i.e. opposite party No. 2 vide objection dated 25-02-2011. The complainant approached the higher officials of the opposite parties and thereafter the opposite parties disconnected her electric connection. The complainant requested the assessing officer to decide her objection and to order restoration of her electric connection but he did not pay any heed to her request. The officials of the opposite parties refused to reconnect her electricity on the ground that new meters were not available with them. On 28-02-2011, the complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 to enquire about her case and the official of the opposite parties threatened her to deposit the impugned amount otherwise she would be implicated in a criminal case of theft. The complainant alleged that the meter was never tampered by her nor the same can be tampered by a layman. The meter reader and other officials of the opposite parties used to visit and check the meter from time to time and it is the opposite parties who are liable and responsible for the same and the complainant cannot be penalized for the lapse on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, she has filed the present complaint.

2. The opposite parties filed written reply and pleaded that electric connection of the complainant had been checked by Sr. XEN Enforcement, PSPCL, on 25-02-2011 and on checking it had been found that there was hole on the lower portion of the cover of the electric meter and on the side of the meter there were many scratches, the Internal Accountary System of the meter was found tampered with to control the electricity reading by way of unauthorized means. This act of the complainant amounted to be a case of theft of electricity. The officials of the opposite parties prepared the checking report at the spot and the copy of the same was signed by the son of the complainant who was present there in token of receipt of checking report. On the basis of checking report, provisional order of assessment bearing No. 522 dated 25-02-2011 for unauthorized use of electricity had been issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs. 1,14,235/-. Vide the said memo, the complainant has also been asked to deposit another amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. She was also asked that incase she did not agree with the provisional order, she could file the objection and accordingly she filed objections. She was given opportunity of personal hearing but no merit was found in the objections filed by the complainant, as such, the demand made vide provisional assessment has become final and the complainant is liable to pay the same. The opposite parties have pleaded that since the theft was detected by the technical staff and was apparently visible, as such, there was no need for getting the same verified from any Lab. However, in case the connection holder requires, the same can be get checked from ME Lab.

3. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings.

4. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The opposite parties have raised a demand of Rs. 1,14,235/- from the complainant on account of theft of energy and Rs. 35,000/- as compounding charges on the ground that the electric meter which was installed in the premises of the complainant, there was a hole on the lower portion of the cover of the meter, it was also found on the side of the meter, there were many scratches, the Internal Accountary System of the meter was found tampered with to control the electricity reading by way of unauthorized means. The complainant has denied that he ever committed any theft of energy.

6. A perusal of checking report Ex. R-3 reveals that after checking a detailed report has been given, English version of which is reproduced hereunder :-

   “Meter is E/M and has been installed inside the premises. A whole has been made on the lower portion of the cover of meter and there are many scratches on the counter of the meter. The internal Accountary system of the meter was found tampered with to control the reading of actual consumption of electricity.”

7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that present complaint is pre-mature and in case the connection holder requires, the same can be got checked from M.E. Lab., This contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is not tenable as the complainant has already raised objections while writing on the checking report itself Ex. R-3 that “I am not satisfied with this checking” and thereafter she filed objections before the Designated Authority vide Ex. C-2, but when no heed was paid to her request, she approached this Forum. The opposite parties have pleaded in their written reply that the demand has become final. When the demand has become final and electricity connection of the complainant stands disconnected without any investigation/going into root of the case, then there remains no matter at this stage, for sending the meter to M.E. Lab.

8. A perusal of record reveals that no documentary evidence has been produced on file about the condition of the meter when it was installed indicating receipt of the meter by the complainant at his premises without any tampering. It was for the opposite parties to establish that at the time of installation of the meter, there was no hole in the meter body and scratches on the counter of the meter. There may be several reasons of existence of such scratches on the counter of the meter. It is not the case where checking staff at the time of removal of the meter saw any straw affixed in the hole of the meter for stopping its reading. The officials of the opposite parties at the time of removal of the meter did not observe theft of energy being committed by stopping the meter in any manner. In this regard support can be sought from the observations of our own Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh, wherein the precedent laid down in the case titled Superintending Engineer Vs. Punjab Khapatkar Sangh (Regd.) 2005(2) CPC 407 is as under :-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Electricity – Appeal filed against order of District Forum for quashing the demand of Rs. 79,597/- and restoring the electricity connection of complainant – Main reason for imposing this penalty was that there was a hole in the meter body which was taken as theft of energy - It is settled principle of law that charge of theft being a criminal offence it has to be proved by a convincing evidence which was not available in the present case – Petitioner had deposited the amount as claimed to avoid disconnection of electricity supply – Complainant is entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the deposited amount from date of order of

District Forum till date of payment.”

9. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with cost of Rs. 1000/- and the provisional order of assessment issued vide memo No. 522 dated 25-02-2011 Ex. R-4 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to install the electric meter and restore the electric connection of the complainant if not yet restored, and refund the amount of Rs. 38,000/- if any, deposited by the complainant as per order dated 28-02-2011 of this Forum, for restoring his electric connection.

   The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record room.

Pronounced

17-06-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul) Member