DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.479 of 18-10-2010 Decided on 21-02-2011
Mohinder Singh, aged about 73 years, son of Chhota Singh, resident of Near Cold Store, Rampura Phul. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its M.D./C.M.D./Secretary. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited., City Sub Division, Rampura Phul. ......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.Lovenish Garg, 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 SP connection No.91/91 for running Atta Chaki to earn his livelihood. He received a memo No.1784 dated 11.10.2010 u/s 126 of the Electricity Act for a demand of Rs.4,48,942/- on the basis of checking dated 30.08.2010. It has been written in it that at the time of checking the meter, both the ME seals were found broken and result of the meter is out of limit, so it is a case of theft. The complainant has challenged the abovesaid memo on various grounds that the checking dated 30.08.2010 was neither made in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained; the abovesaid checking was one sided; the complainant has neither committed any theft of electricity nor has used the electricity unauthorizedly; the meter of the complainant is installed outside on the road from the last five years; the officials who used to check the meter have never pointed out about the broken ME seals; the meter was neither packed nor sealed in the cardboard box nor the 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 alleged amount of Rs.4,48,942/- has been raised. The complainant has further alleged that the opposite parties have not followed the procedure prescribed u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and passed the final order of assessment. Under regulation 36 (a),(b),(c)and (d) of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, notified by Punjab State Regulatory Commission, the inspection in question was carried out by the Assessing Officer himself. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the matter in dispute is regarding theft of electricity and not regarding the condition of the meter. At the time of installation, the meter was accurate and correct and the same was shown to the complainant. At the time of removal of the meter, the representative of the complainant Mr.Amar Singh was present who put his signatures on the box in which the meter was sealed. The checking was of 09.08.2010 and not of 30.08.2010. The report of ME Lab dated 30.08.2010 reveals that the seals of the meter were broken/tampered and result of the meter was out of limit. Hence, this is a case of theft of energy. The representative of the complainant was present at the time of checking dated 30.08.2010 in ME Lab. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant might have committed theft at night or during holidays time and they have specifically mentioned that the officials of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited can not keep watch for 24 hours. There is also possibility of committing theft in working hours also. Mr. Amar Singh who told himself to be the representative of the complainant, was present at the time of checking and the sealing of the meter in cardboard box. The complainant was not present at the time of checking the meter. The amount has been calculated as per L x D x H x F formula. The opposite parties further submitted that they have followed all rules of the opposite parties. During checking dated 09.08.2010, ME seals were found in suspected condition and the matter was to be confirmed after ME Lab opinion. The meter was removed and sent to ME Lab which reported the matter of theft on the basis of seals being broken/tampered. 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 received a memo No.1784 dated 11.10.2010 vide Ex.C-2 for the demand of Rs.4,48,942/- on the account of ME seals broken/tampered and result of the meter was out of limit. This provisional order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of the Electricity Act has been sent on the report of ME Lab, Bathinda and the amount has been calculated as per L x D x H x F formula for the period of 12 months. The complainant has challenged the provisional order of assessment on various grounds. The checking has been conducted in the premises of the complainant on 09.08.2010 in the presence of Amar Singh. This checking was duly signed by one Amar Singh, the representative of the complainant and it has been specifically mentioned that the load was according to the sanctioned load but ME seals were tampered. On the basis of this checking report Ex.R-2, the meter has been removed. The MCO was issued on 13.08.2010. The old meter was removed and the new meter has been installed. The meter was sent to ME Lab and the performance record of electric meter Ex.R-5 shows that the ME seals of the meter were tampered and result of the meter was out of limit. Hence, this is a case of theft of electricity. Sh.Tejinder Singh, J.E., Punjab State Power Corporation Limited has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R-7 that the checking dated 09.08.2010 was made by him alongwith Jagdish Rai. On checking, it was found that there was no MTC seal on the meter. During checking dated 09.08.2010 ME seals of the meter were found in suspected condition as the meter was not displaying anything, since the matter was to be confirmed after ME Lab opinion, the meter was removed and sent to ME Lab which reported the matter of theft on the basis of seals being broken/tampered. The meter was burnt and the result was out of limit. The checking was done in the presence of Amar Singh who told himself to be the representative (son) of the complainant and the meter was also removed in his presence vide MCO No.065, book No.0966 and was packed in the cardboard box and he put his signatures on the seals. On 30.08.2010, the meter was checked/examined by ME Lab and the officials of the ME Lab found that the ME seals of the meter were tampered, result were out of limit and nothing can be read from the meter. Hence, this is a case of theft of electricity. The opposite parties issued a provisional order of assessment for Rs. 4,48,942/- to the complainant vide memo No.1784 dated 11.10.2010 according to L x D x H x F formula on the account of theft of electricity. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued a final order of assessment bearing memo No.1872 dated 25.10.2010 for the same amount but the complainant had refused to receive the final order of assessment. 6. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 7. 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
|
