DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 41 of 05.02.2008<br /> Decided on : 20-03-2008 <br /> <br /> Chanan Singh aged about 82 years S/o Sh. Bachan Singh, R/o House No. 1719 Bachan Singh Street, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.SDO/AEE, P.S.E.B, City Sub Division, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh.Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. M.L. Bansal, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Shop bearing MC No. 2470-D situated on GT Road, Opposite Zila Parishad was purchased by the complainant from Gurmeet Singh and Gurdas Singh for the purpose of earning his livelihood and to augment his income. Electricity connection bearing A/c No. SP-19/119 was installed in it in the name of one Sukhdev Singh. Electricity connection alongwith electric fitting including meter was also purchased by him. Work of medical lab was started by him with the help of his grand son. Previously Sukhdev Singh was paying electricity bills. An application was moved on 3.10.07 for changing the electricity connection from SP to Non residential supply (NRS) on the ground that he is doing the business of medical lab in the shop. He was directed to complete all the formalities as per requirements. A sum of Rs. 2550/- was got deposited from him on 10.10.07. Flying Squad headed by AEE Enforcement had checked the connection on 27.11.07. No fault was found in the working of the meter. Carbon copy of the Register No. 592 page No. 5 of the Enforcement Checking Register shows that connection at the spot was NRS. No defect of any kind was noted regarding the seal etc., Meter was removed at his back without any notice. Seals were not shown to him. Meter was not sealed and packed in cardboard box as per rules nor his signatures were obtained. Memo No. 131 dated 28.1.08 was received by him vide which demand of Rs. 31,713/- has been raised alleging that meter was tampered. He assails this memo as illegal, null, void and against rules and regulations. It is further added by him that meter was not defective and was working properly. In these circumstances, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw this Memo No. 131 dated 28.1.08 or quash the same; restrain them from disconnecting the electricity connection for non-payment of the amount; pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental tension harassment and botheration besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. They filed reply taking legal objections that complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint and he has not come with clean hands. Inter-alia their plea is that meter was changed on 26.11.07 on the request of the complainant vide A&A No. 32822 dated 10.10.07 for change of category from SP to NRS. Checking of the connection by Flying Squad was conducted on 27.11.07. During checking, new single phase meter was found functioning/installed in the premises. Old meter was removed and sealed in the presence of the complainant/his representative on 26.11.07. Removed meter was checked in the M.E. Laboratory in the presence of the complainant/his representative on 18.1.08. During checking, it was found that M.E. Seals of the meter were tampered and supply was being controlled by opening the body of the meter. On merits, they admit that electricity connection bearing A/c No. SP19/119 was installed in the name of Sukhdev Singh. On 26.11.07, meter was changed and new meter was installed at the request of the complainant for changing the category of the connection. During checking it was found on 27.11.07 that he was having unauthorised load. His sanctioned load was 4.93 K.W. whereas he was using 7.495 K.W. load for which separate notice raising demand of Rs. 7,024/- was issued. They deny that Memo No. 131 dated 28.1.08 is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of memo dated 28.1.08 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of letter dated 3.10.07 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-4), photocopy of checking report (Ex. C-5), his another affidavit (Ex. C-6), photocopy of cheque (Ex. C-7) and photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-8).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties two affidavits of S/Sh. Surinder Pal AJE and Krishan Lal, AJE (Ex. R-1& Ex. R-2) respectively, photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-3), photocopy of M.E. Lab report (Ex. R-4), photocopy of Memo dated 9.1.08 (Ex. R-5), photocopy of provisional Order No. 131 (Ex. R-6) and photocopy of P.D.C.O. (Ex. R-7) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant argued that impugned memo copy of which is Ex. C-2 is illegal as removed meter was not sealed and put in the cardboard box before checking in the M.E. Lab nor signatures of the complainant were obtained. Meter was not defective. Nature of tampering has not been explained.<br /> 7. Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that opposite parties have proved their version by way of leading abundant evidence which is worth placing credence.<br /> 8. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 9. Some facts do not remain in dispute. They are that previously electricity connection No. SP-19/119 was in the name of Sukhdev Singh. An application was moved by the complainant for changing the category of the connection from Small Power (SP) to NRS. His request was accepted. Meter was changed on 26.11.07 as is evident from Ex. R-7 which is the copy of the Disconnection Order. It has been signed by the consumer. It being so, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that meter was removed at his back. Ex. R-1 is the affidavit of Sh. Surinder Pal A.J.E. , City Sub Division, Bathinda. He has stated that he had removed the meter from the premises of the complainant as per Disconnection Order No. 44/75703 dated 25.10.07 and that removed meter was sealed in the presence of the complainant/his representative and signatures were obtained on the seals then and there. There is no rebuttal of this affidavit which has been tendered in evidence by the opposite parties today. So far as the affidavit of the complainant is concerned, it was tendered on 11.3.08. Moreover all the official acts performed by the public servants in the discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct unless otherwise proved. There is not an iota evidence that Sh. Surinder Pal has enmity or motive to make statement against the complainant. Mere fact that copy of the seals has not been placed and proved by the opposite parties, would assume no significance. Removed meter was taken to the M.E. Lab by Sh. Krishan Lal, AJE whose affidavit is Ex. R-2. His statement is that meter was taken to the M.E. Lab vide Challan No. 145 dated 18.1.08. Notice No. 70 dated 9.1.08 was issued to the complainant to appear in the M.E. Lab on 18.1.08 at 10.30 a.m. for getting the meter checked. Copy of the notice is Ex. R-5. It was served. Sh. Krishan Lal further states that on 18.1.08 meter was opened and checked in the M.E. Lab by the checking authorities in his presence as well as in the presence of complainant/his representative. They were satisfied about the checking and checking report was prepared which was duly signed by him as well as by the complainant/his representative. Copy of the checking report is Ex. R-4. A perusal of this document reveals that meter was duly sealed in a box and was taken out of the box at the time of checking. All the four ME seals were tampered. It was found that after tampering the M.E. Seal, meter was being opened unauthorisedly and consumption was being controlled. It was found to be case of theft of energy. This report has been signed by the representative of the complainant. It is not a case where allegation is only of tampering of the seals. Rather the consumer after tampering the M.E. Seals and opening the body of the meter was controlling the consumption of electricity unauthorisedly. Hence the contention on behalf of the complainant that he was not committing theft of energy cannot be accepted. On the basis of the report of M.E. Lab, impugned memo was issued. Learned counsel for the complainant could not point out that the amount of Rs. 31,713/- shown in the impugned memo copy of which is Ex. R-2 is in any way inflated. It has been issued on the basis of the report of the M.E. Lab which is proved to have been given after complying with the rules and regulations and principle of natural justice. Hence demand of Rs. 31,713/- is not illegal, null and void. Complainant is liable to meet it. No deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved. In this view of the matter , we get support from the authority Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Surat Singh IV (2007)2007 CPJ 18(NC).<br /> 10. In the result, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 20-03-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />