BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 751 of 1.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          20.9.2011

Sadhu Ram son of Sh.Amar Nath, resident of village and Post Office, Masinghan, Tehsil Dudhan Sadhan, District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary/Chairman.

2.                 Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Rohar Jagir, Tehsil Dudhan Sadhan, District Patiala.

                                                                        ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Tarun Sharma, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.Pawan Puri, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection bearing account No.P26MF470403A.The complainant has been depositing the bills of the electricity regularly and nothing was due and outstanding against the complainant.

2.       The electricity meter of the complainant was replaced in the month of October 2009. Thereafter the complainant has been depositing the charges of the electricity regularly.

3.       The complainant received the bill dated 14.8.2010 for the consumption of 81 units for Rs.25,120/-.The complainant has described the demand of the bill to be illegal. The complainant visited the office of the ops for getting the bill corrected but no heed was paid to him in the matter of rectifying the bill and rather the false allegations were made against the complainant that he had tampered with the meter and that the meter was checked in the M.E.Lab and M&T seals were found tampered and that the amount of Rs.25611/- has been levied  by way of a penalty and handed over a demand notice no.1049 dated 25.8.2010 to the complainant on 26.8.2010 asking him to deposit the amount within one week.

4.       The complainant is an aged person of 72 years and is running a small karyana shop in village Masinghan. Accordingly describing the demand of Rs.25611/- as illegal, the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to setaside the demand; to award him Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation on account of harassment suffered by him at the hands of the ops and to further award him Rs.2000/-as costs of the complaint.

5.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the complainant is running a large scale business for earning profit. The connection is being used for commercial purposes. It is also averred that the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO dated 3.8.2009 effected on 13.8.2009.The meter removed from the site was packed in a card board box in the presence of the complainant. The complainant was informed about the date and time of checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab where the meter was brought by the concerned JE of the Sub division vide challan no.35 dated 27.10.2009 and after the checking of the meter, it was found that all the M.E. seals of the meter had been tampered with and reaffixed. It was a case of theft of the energy .The consumer was issued a notice for depositing the amount of the penalty for having committed theft of the energy but he failed to deposit the same.

6.       It is further averred that the amount of the notice was added in the bi-monthly bills of the complainant. The consumption pattern of the consumer can be seen to conclude that the consumer was committing theft of the energy. The meter of the consumer had shown either nil consumption or very little consumption during the bi-monthly period from May 2008 to the date of the filing of the written statement. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.       In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, Ex.C2 the sworn affidavit of Parveen Kaushal,alongwith the documents,Exs.C3 to C4 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

8.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the reply to the complaint in the form of the affidavit, Ex.R5, the sworn affidavit of Jaskaran Singh,AEE M.E.Lab Sub Division, Patiala, Ex.R6, the sworn affidavit of Barjinder Singh, JE, operation of op no.2 alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R4 and also Ex.R7 and closed their evidence.

9.       The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

10.     Ex.R2, is the copy of the MCO dated 3.8.2009 issued in respect of the electricity connection bearing account No.MS47/0403, which was effected on 13.8.2009. The ops have not produced in evidence, the sworn affidavit of the concerned officer i.e. the JE who had effected the MCO so as to show that the meter was removed from the site and put in a card board box and that any paper seal was affixed there on and the signatures of the complainant were obtained. The sworn affidavit,Ex.R6, of JE Barjinder Singh does not speak about the deponent having himself removed the meter from the site.

11.     In the MCO, Ex.R2, no date regarding the checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab is recorded. There is no evidence to have been led by the ops that the complainant was ever informed having written any letter regarding the date and time of the checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab.Therefore, it would appear the meter was checked in the M.E.Lab in the absence of the complainant.

12.     Ex.R3 is the copy of challan no.35 dated 27.10.2009 regarding the checking of 14 meters but the same does not bear the signatures of the Sr.Xen, AEE or of the JE. Time and again it has been observed, that the report regarding the checking of the meter is very valuable document and therefore, it should be prepared in respect of every meter separately showing the name and designation of the officer conducting the checking. As per the challan, Ex.R3, entry no.43 as stated by the learned counsel for the ops pertains to the electricity meter of the complainant and as per entry made thereon all the ME seals of the same were found tampered.

13.     Now the question arises, in case the ME seals of the meter were found tampered, whether it is a conclusive proof regarding the theft of the energy.

14.     In the case of the citation HSWEB( Now HVPN) and others Versus Bhushan Lal 2007(1)CLT 114, the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory,Chandigarh observed , “ the allegation of appellants is that the premises of respondent were checked on 13.7.1998 by the raiding party and on checking found that both M&T seals were tampered with and terminal seal was missing. Now the question arises whether from the mere fact that M&T seals were tampered with and terminal seal was missing, a case of theft of energy is made out. The answer is certainly not. It was incumbent upon on the raiding party to install a parallel meter and should have noted difference in the energy consumed in both meters. Having not done so from the mere fact that seals were tampered with, it can not be said that theft of energy had been committed. The meter was not got checked from M&T laboratory that it had been running slow or was not running properly. In the absence of such evidence it can not be held that complainant had committed theft of energy”.

15.     It was the duty of the concerned officer in the M.E.Lab while checking the meter to have determined as to what was the mechanical defect in the working of the meter i.e. whether it was running slow or was not running properly, in the absence of which the report of the M.E.lab does not carry any value. The officials of the ops had also not installed a parallel meter to note the difference in the energy consumed in both the meters. Therefore, it will  not be possible for us to up hold the demand raised by the ops from the complainant on the basis of the alleged theft of the energy as pointed out by AEE of op no.2 to the complainant vide memo no.1049 dated 25.8.2010 and which ultimately was reflected in the impugned bill dated 14.8.2010,Ex.C3.

16.     As an up shot or our aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint and setaside the demand of Rs.25611/- raised vide memo Ex.C4 dated 25.8.2010 and the same to have been reflected in the bill,Ex.C3 dated 14.8.2010.

17.     Here it is also important to note that on the basis of the report obtained from the M.E.Lab, no action was taken by the ops in raising the demand and rather the demand was raised on the basis of the overhauling of the account of the complainant by the internal audit party as conveyed vide half margin no.133/22.2.10.Therefore taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the complaint with costs assessed at Rs.5000/- to be paid to the complainant within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced.

Dated:20.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President