BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 62

Date of Institution : 8.3.2010

Date of Decision : 31.8.2010

Ashok Kumar Jain aged about 58 years S/o Harkrishan Lal resident of Mohalla Dodan Talab, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, PSEB, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) City Subdivision, PSEB, Faridkot.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for charging the amount of Rs. 95,067/- vide letter No. 3956 dated 8.2.2010 issued to the complainant pertaining to Account No. MB 38/0019 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said notice and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is consumer of the opposite parties using domestic electric connection Account No. MB 38/0019. He received letter No. 3956 dated 8.2.2010 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which the demand of Rs. 95,067/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking dated 22.10.2009 by Sr. Xen Moga on account of theft of energy. No copy of the alleged checking report has ever been supplied to the complainant at any point of time not even with the letter of demand in spite of the fact that note regarding attachment of copy is given on the checking report. The alleged consent on printed proforma was taken by the employees of the opposite party on the pretext that at the time of changing the meter this is required to be given by every consumer as per rules of the PSEB. No notice of the alleged checking of meter in ME Lab was given to the complainant. The connected load at the premises of the complainant is very much less than the sanctioned load as the complainant got sanctioned the load as per old formula of the PSEB. On receipt of above mentioned letter the complainant immediately visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and requested to supply the copy of alleged checking report but no copy of alleged checking report was supplied to the complainant, rather the opposite party No. 2 threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 10.3.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, so the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is admitted that the present electricity connection is installed in the premises of the complainant. It is also admitted that the opposite parties have issued notice No. 3956 dated 8.2.2010 to the complainant and had called upon him to deposit the present amount. It is further submitted that the electricity meter so removed from the premises of the consumer was checked in ME Lab at Moga on 22.10.2009 and during checking it was found that the complainant had tampered with the meter. All the clamps and ME seals of the meter were tampered. He had tried to rejoin the same with some adhesive material. It is also found that the complainant had tried to tamper with the internal parts of the meter. In this way, the complainant was committing theft of energy. He was duly informed that he should be present in ME Lab so that the electricity meter is checked in his presence, but the complainant had given his written consent that the meter be checked in his absence. So, the said meter was checked in his absence under the supervision of Er. Pavittar Singh, Sr. Xen, ME Lab, Moga. The said notice has been given as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, memo No. 3956 Ex.C-2, copies of bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-16 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Prit Pal Singh Sandhu Ex.R-1, affidavit of Opinder Singh Ex.R-2, Pavittar Singh Ex.R-3, affidavit of Harbhajan Singh Ex.R-4, notice Ex.R-5, checking report Ex.R-6, intimation Ex.R-7, seal packed meter Ex.R-8, copy of MCO Ex.R-9, Challan Ex.R-10 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that ME Lab testing is totally unreliable as the same has not been made in presence of the complainant. The alleged consent letter Ex.R-7 is undated and is apparently got signed when the meter in question was taken off. The said testing is also doubtful as the same was made approximately a months after taking of the electric meter of the complainant. No variation in consumption of electricity through the meter in question has been arrived at during testing as envisaged vide commercial circular No. 50/95. In this way, unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in this case is writ large.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that there are clear findings in the meter testing report that complainant had been controlling consumption in the stated manner. Removal of meter with reading as 206112 is admitted and meter testing in the ME Lab is proved by the officer/officials of the opposite parties vide their duly sworn affidavits Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4. Demand notice was issued thereafter but no representation against the said demand prior to the filing of the present complaint was made. Therefore, abstraction of energy in this case and demand raised on account of that is duly proved and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10. We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. There is no denial of the fact that main plank of opposite parties of proof of theft is based on ME Lab test report Ex.R-6 on the basis of consent of the complainant Ex.R-7. In our considered opinion, the consent letter Ex.R-7 is totally unreliable document as the same appears to have been procured at the time of taking out the meter from the spot without making the complainant aware of it. Ex.R-9 which is MCO is silent as to seal packing of the meter on the spot. Para 1 of the ME Lab testing report Ex.R-6 is found to be inconsistent in as much as the same claims signatures of representative of the complainant on the seal packing of the meter besides signatures of AJE. It is surprising that how the seal packing was signed by representative of the complainant when the complainant himself had signed the so called consent letter Ex.R-7 on the spot though the same does not bear any date or time. It is interesting to note that account number on the consent letter is also re-written after cutting the same under the subject of the said letter meaning thereby that this document was fabricated after obtaining the signatures of the complainant thereupon on the spot. In the light of our above observations sanctity of ME Lab test report Ex.R-6 is questionable and is not free from doubt. So, the demand raised on the basis of the test report in question cannot be legally countenanced. Since the theft of energy has not been proved in this case, so the demand is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted with a direction to the opposite parties to withdraw the amount of Rs. 95,067/- charged by them vide letter No. 3956 dated 8.2.2010 from the complainant alongwith all the surcharges, if any, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Any amount, if already deposited by the complainant with regard to above mentioned charges of Rs. 95,067/- vide letter No. 3956 dated 8.2.2010 with the opposite parties, be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in his next bills. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 31.8.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)