BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 67

Date of Institution : 16.3.2010

Date of Decision : 11.11.2010

Jagdev Singh aged 50 years s/o Gurbaksh Singh resident of Qila Road, Near New Bus Stand, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

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

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) Sub Urban Sub Division, PSEB, Kotkapura.

...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. 11,000/- vide letter No. 337 dated 22.2.2010 to the complainant account No. MD 65/0403 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said letter and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is consumer of the opposite parties using domestic electric connection Account No. MD 65/0403 running in the premises of the complainant. He received letter No. 337 dated 22.2.2010 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which the demand of Rs. 11,000/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking dated 15.2.2010 by ME Lab Bathinda on account of theft of energy. No notice of alleged checking of ME Lab was given to the complainant and checking has been done in the absence of the complainant. No copy of alleged checking report of ME Lab has ever been supplied to the complainant nor with the letter of demand. The meter of the complainant was found outside the premises of the complainant. During the night of 24.5.2009 three number meters of the locality where the connection of the complainant is installed were damaged by some persons and glass of the meter was tampered. Report of the same was given to the opposite party No. 2 and SHO City Kotkapura by Kewal Krishan son of Rajeev Kumar. Meter of the complainant was removed by the employees of the opposite party No. 2 unpacked and unsealed. The complainant never interfere in the working of the meter. It is denied that meter was intentionally burnt by the complainant as alleged in the letter of demand. Copy of alleged checking report of ME Lab has not been supplied to the complainant. On receipt of said letter complainant immediately visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and inquired about the amount demanded by the opposite party but 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. 5,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 16.3.2010 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 present complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer. He has no right to file the present complaint. He was committing theft, so he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the present connection is installed in the premises of the complainant. It is also admitted that the notice has been sent and the complainant had been called upon to deposit the amount on the basis of checking done by ME Lab. The meter of the complainant was removed on 7.12.2009 from his premises and the same was duly packed and sealed. This was done in the presence of the complainant. The box was duly sealed and paper seals were fixed on the same. The complainant was informed that his meter has to be checked in ME Lab at Bathinda, so he should be present in ME Lab so that the same is checked in his presence. But he gave the undertaking that he has no objection if the meter so removed and packed is checked in ME Lab in his absence. The undertaking so given bears the signatures of Jagdev Singh the present complainant. Then the meter was checked in ME Lab Bathinda on 15.2.2010. On inspection it was found by the checking team that the complainant had tampered with the meter. He had done holes in the meter and had tampered with the counter of the meter and in this way he had been controlling the consumption. In this way theft was being committed by the complainant. The amount has been calculated as per rules and regulations. The notice No. 377 dated 22.2.2010 was duly received by him under his signatures. It is further submitted that all the three meters so mentioned in the complaint were taken to ME Lab for checking but no defect was found in the other two meters. Only the meter of the present complainant was found to be tampered. There is no personal grudge against the complainant. 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, copy of memo No. 337 Ex.C-2, copy of application dated 25.5.2009 Ex.C-3, copy of application dated 25.5.2009 Ex.C-4, copies of bills Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6, copy of sale deed Ex.C-7, receipt No. 64 Ex.C-8, electricity bills Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-11 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of V.K. Bansal Ex.R-1, affidavit of Bhushan Kumar Ex.R-2, copy of checking report Ex.R-3, consent letter Ex.R-4, copy of challan Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file.

8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case is that the action of the opposite parties in charging Rs. 11,000/- vide letter dated 22.2.2010 Ex.C-2 to the complainant qua his account number is illegal and unlawful. It is also argued that alleged checking in the ME Lab Ex.R-3 is inadmissible in evidence having been made at the back of the complainant in view of his alleged consent vide letter Ex.R-4. In fact, meter of the complainant was installed outside his premises and during the night of 24.5.2009 three numbers meter of the locality with connection of the complainant installed were damaged by some persons and glass of the meter was tampered. Report in this respect was given to the opposite party No. 2 and SHO concerned. Copy of complaint/information in this respect to SDO is Ex.C-4 and copy of complaint in this respect to SHO is Ex.C-3. It is contended that as per bill of 3.3.2009 Ex.C-11 the status of the meter has been shown as D code meaning thereby defective one with the same old and new reading. It was changed as is evident from the code C given in electricity bill of 2.5.2009 Ex.C-10. In the said bill new reading has been entered as 2. Since by the time the checking was made on 11.2.2010 duration was very less so tampering cannot be possible.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. Bills Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-11 have been issued in the name of Naib Singh. Complainant has not disclosed what relation he has got and as to how he connected with said Naib Singh. In para 1 of his complaint he has merely stated to be user of the connection in question and nothing more. Therefore, complaint by him is simply unmaintainable. He further argued that sale deed Ex.C-7 is in the joint name of Jagdev Singh and Baldev Singh, so complainant has no exclusive right to maintain the present complaint. Still further, ME Lab report Ex.R-3 is based on written consent given by the complainant Ex.R-4 to check his electricity meter in his absence. No fraud or coercion has been pleaded by the complainant in so far his consent letter is concerned. In ME Lab report meter was not only found burnt but it was found that holes were engineered therein. Vide entry in the performance record of the electronic meters copies whereof Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6 electricity meter of other consumers were also checked and factual and correct report was given therein. In the said document electric meters of other consumers were found OK whereas that of the complainant was found to be defective. Opposite party has not personal grudge against the complainant to unnecessarily give wrong findings against him.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant however submitted that in view of the alleged consent complainant has been presumed as consumer. Further more, checking report is also in the name of complainant. Therefore, opposite party cannot deny the fact that the complainant is their consumer. It is further argued that no checking qua others have been brought or proved on file by the opposite parties. He has also contended that since the electric meter of the complainant was outside the premises so it was not his duty to take care thereof and further that report having been for short period so liability of the complainant if at all can be fixed only for limited period.

11. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. In para 1 of the complaint complainant has averred that he is consumer of the opposite parties due to use of domestic electric connection in question which is running in his premises. In support of his stance copy of sale deed qua the premises in question has been brought on record as Ex.C-7. In this sale deed premises in question is stated to have been purchased by the complainant alongwith one Baldev Singh who is none other but his real brother. Said Baldev Singh has not protested against the use of the connection by the complainant. Complainant has also brought on record copy of bills Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 and payment receipt Ex.C-8 besides the copy of notice Ex.C-2. In the consent letter Ex.R-4 also there are signatures of the complainant. All these documents clearly prove that it is the complainant who is using the electricity connection installed in his premises and in this way he is beneficiary and resultantly the consumer of the opposite parties. In regard to the checking report we have found that the same is based on consent of the complainant as tendered as Ex.R-4. In this consent letter complainant has also got written that in the premises in question where the electricity meter has been installed he has been putting up for the last 15 years. Signatures on this letter are admitted. Charges in this case to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- vide letter dated 22.2.2010 Ex.C-2 have been raised on the basis of the ME Lab report Ex.R-3. In this report it is observed that complainant had made holes in the meter and had tampered with its counter so as to control the consumption. Bhushan Kumar Jindal Additional SE Enforcement has filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.R-2 to prove the meter checking report Ex.R-3. In this affidavit he has specifically stated among other things that he alongwith his team checked the meter in question on 15.2.2010. He has specifically stated the manner as also noted above in para 3. Since the proved checking report Ex.R-3 has been prepared in view of the consent given by the complainant, so no fault therewith can be found. It is also noticed that electric meter of other consumers were also checked on the basis of their respective consent as is evident from performance record of electronics meter dated 15.2.2010 Ex.R-6 and the defect has been pointed out only in respect of electric meter of the complainant whereas the result of electric meters of other consumers is noted as OK. Complainant has not alleged any enmity with the employees of the opposite parties, therefore, there was no reason for them to find fault with only electricity meter of the complainant. The factum of electric meter of the complainant having been installed outside his premises is irrelevant as no other person by tampering the meter like the one as observed would not help any other person except the complainant.

12. In the light of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 11.11.2010

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