DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 492 of 27-10-2010 Decided on : 07-03-2011
Puran Singh S/o S. Pritam Singh, aged about 64 years, R/o H. No. 20995, Street No. 2, Power House Road, Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/Managing Director The Superintending Engineer, Assessing Office, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division, Bathinda. Sub Divisional Officer/Asstt. Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, civil Lines, Sub Division, Bathinda. .... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member For the Complainant : Sh. Rajan Singla, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.R. Khattar, counsel for the opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
This 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'). The complainant has a domestic electric connection bearing A/c No. CL 146/137 installed in his residential premises and he has been paying the electricity bills so issued by the opposite parties from time to time. As per the policy of the opposite parties, the electric meter in question was installed outside the house of the complainant in the street and the complainant has no control over the same. On 17-07-2010, the opposite parties checked the premises of the complainant and found connected load correct as per sanctioned load and then they checked that the meter was tampered although the same was not tampered by the complainant. On the basis of checking, the opposite parties issued memo bearing No. 538 dated 20-07-2010 raising demand of Rs. 31,732/- from the complainant for tampering seals of the meter and theft of electricity. The complainant immediately filed objections with opposite party No. 2. The checking party removed the meter despite objections raised by the complainant. The complainant deposited the impugned amount of Rs. 31,732/- under forced circumstances vide receipt dated 27-07-2010 and after deposit of amount, the meter was reinstalled. The opposite parties never called the complainant nor gave any opportunity of hearing to him. The complainant assails the impugned demand on the ground that the premises of the complainant was checked and it was found that the connected load was correct as per sanctioned load; the meter is installed outside the house and the same is not in approach of the complainant and the complainant never indulged in theft of energy. The complainant approached the opposite parties as well as their higher officials and requested them that there are no arrears against the complainant nor the complainant ever indulged in theft of electricity and the rules and regulations were not followed by the opposite parties before the checking. Hence, this complaint. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and raised legal objection that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as once a person has gone to Assessing Authority i.e. Dispute Settlement Committee, then he cannot approach this Forum. The opposite parties have admitted that the complainant is holder of electric connection in question. It has been pleaded that raid in the premises of the complainant was conducted on 17-07-2010 by the enforcement staff headed by Engineer Ranjit Singh AEE (Enforcement) alongwith JE Angrej Singh and JE Ajaib Singh. At the time of checking, they found that the meter seals were broken and internal seals were also tampered with to control the consumption. Hence, the complainant was found indulging in theft of electricity. The checking was conducted in the presence of the son of the complainant and checking report was prepared at the spot. The son of the complainant signed the checking report. The meter was removed and packed in the cardboard box in the presence of the son of the complainant. Thereafter memo No. 538 dated 20-07-2010 demanding the amount of Rs. 31,732/- was issued to the complainant on the basis of theft of electricity as per rules of PSPCL. Alongwith the said memo, the details of demand was also sent vide calculation sheet duly prepared by SDO, Cantt. Sub Division, Bathinda. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that his electric meter in question was installed outside the house of the complainant in the street. On 17-07-2010, the opposite parties checked the premises of the complainant and found connected load as per sanctioned load. On the basis of checking, the opposite parties issued memo dated 20-07-2010 raising a demand of Rs. 31,732/- from the complainant for tampering seals of the meter and theft of electricity. The complainant immediately filed objections with opposite party No. 2. The checking party removed the meter despite objections raised by the complainant. No opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant. The complainant deposited the impugned amount under forced circumstances vide receipt dated 27-07-2010. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he never tampered with the seals of the meter or indulged in theft of electricity. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint as the complainant has already approached Dispute Settlement Committee. The electric connection of the complainant was raided on 17-07-2010 by the enforcement staff headed by Er. Ranjit Singh AEE (Enforcement) alongwith JE Agrej Singh and JE Ajaib Singh and it was found that the meter seals were broken and internal seals were also tampered with by the complainant to control the consumption. The checking was conducted in the presence of son of complainant who signed the checking report and meter was removed and packed in the cardboard box in his presence. He further submitted that the said demand of Rs. 31,732/- is raised on the basis of aforesaid checking which is legal and valid as the complainant was found indulging in theft of energy. The complainant filed objections dated 4.8.2010 before the assessing authority but thereafter he did not turn up. He denied the fact that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs. 31,732/- under forced circumstances. The electric meter of the complainant has been installed in the street. The complainant received provisional order of assessment dated 20-07-2010 Ex C-1 in which it has been specifically mentioned that both the M.E. seals were tampered with and that the internal seals were also tampered to control the consumption, hence the complainant was found indulging in theft of electricity. The status of the meter in the bills placed on file Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6 and Ex. C-8 to Ex. C-10 has been shown as 'O' which means the working of the meter was absolutely correct whereas in the bills dated 18-01-2009 and 20-03-2010 Ex. C-11 & Ex. C-12 respectively, the status of the meter has been shown as 'T'. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted during arguments that the bills were being issued to the complainant showing status of the meter sometime as 'O' as sometimes 'T'. The opposite parties have not placed on file consumption data showing the status of the meter on various dates/months as mentioned in the bills, stating the reason. A perusal of checking report dated 17-07-2008 Ex. R-4 reveals that the connected load of the complainant was found as 2.25 KW as against the sanctioned load of 5.63 K.W. Hence, the complainant was found consuming the electricity within the prescribed limit. A note has been given on the checking report that both the M E seals were found tampered with and the consumption of electricity was being controlled by tampering the meter from inside. Meter was removed and packed with seals No. PS. 170753. On the basis of this checking, the opposite parties have issued provisional order of assessment Ex. R-5. No opportunity of hearing was provided to the complainant as he was never asked to appear before the assessing authority and no final order of assessment was issued to the complainant. The removed meter was neither sent to M.E. Lab nor to Electricity inspector to ascertain as to whether theft could be committed or not. The support can be sought from the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the following cases : i) Titled Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Basant Kumar 2009(1) CPC 128 wherein it has been held that :- “.... Meter defect – Penalty – Penalty imposed for misuse of electricity as meter was found tampered with as alleged – Meter was not referred to electricity inspector as per compliance of legal provisions – Allegations of misuse of power remained unproved by expert opinion – Fora below rightly quashed the penalty imposed upon respondent/complainant – Interference in revision not warranted.” ii) Uttari Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vs. Shiv Kumar wherein it has been observed that :- “...Test report showing tampering with meter not produced on record. - Theft of electricity not proved – Notice demanding amount of Rs. 65,698/- based upon inspection report quashed – Order of State Commission upheld.”
Contention of the opposite parties that checking report bears the signature of the son of the complainant which means that he has accepted the finding of the checking report that complainant was committing theft of energy, is not tenable because the son of the complainant had signed the checking report simply accepting that electric connection was checked which does not mean that he had also accepted that he/complainant was committing theft of energy. A similar matter came under the consideration of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case titled Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula & Others Vs. Poonam Vashist 2009(2) Civil Court Cases 131 (P&H) wherein it was held that : “Electricity – Theft – Electricity rules require that to prove the theft of electricity, it is the basic requirement that the meter must have been checked from the concerned laboratory.” In the instant case above said procedure which is mandatory has not been followed for seeking a clear verdict of the M.E. laboratory regarding theft of energy. Therefore, in the absence of such a report, above said checking report cannot be accepted.
The law laid down in the above said authorities fully covers the controversy in hand. The meter of the complainant has never been got checked from the M.E. Laboratory. In the absence of M.E. Lab report, it is difficult to ascertain that how the M.E. seals were tampered with by the complainant and what was the mode of theft of electricity and how that can be possible by tampering with the M.E. seals. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the impugned memo without any base. The opposite parties have taken legal objections that complainant has approached Dispute Settlement Committee, hence this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint but they have not produced any evidence on the file to prove that the complainant had approached Dispute Settlement Committee before filing complaint before this Forum. The complainant has stated in his affidavit Ex. C-13 that he has deposited the said amount through cheque no. 667805 dated 27-07-2010 drawn on S.B.I. Under protest with the opposite parties and they have issued receipt No. 286 and 287 for Rs. 31,732/- plus Rs. 120/- because in those hot days no one can live without electricity. In the result, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and cost. The memo No. 538 dated 20-07-2010 Ex. R-5 & Ex. R-6 raising a demand of Rs. 31,732/- from the complainant, is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 31,732/- with interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. the date of deposit of the amount till its refund. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced 07-03-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr.Phulider Preet) Member
|
