BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : CC/10/5

Date of Institution : 8.1.2010

Date of Decision : 13.7.2010

Jagroop Singh aged about 52 years s/o Lal Singh resident of Vill. Machhaki Kalan, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

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

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS), Subdivision, PSEB, Sadiq.

...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. M.S. Brar counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for charging the amount of Rs. 20,346/- vide letter No. 3715 dated 30.12.2009 in respect of Account No. MK 45/0432 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. 5,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, case of the complainant is that he is consumer of the opposite parties having domestic electric connection bearing Account No. MK 45/0432. He received letter No. 3715 dated 30.12.2009 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which the demand of Rs. 20,346/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking dated 24.12.2009 by Sr. Xen, Enforcement, Moga on account of theft of energy and unauthorized load though there is no unauthorized load at the premises of the complainant. The meter of the complainant has been installed by the PSEB outside the premises of the complainant about two years back in the meter cupboard. So, the custody of the meter is not with the complainant. He never interfered in the working of the meter. No device has been installed at the premises of the complainant to know the reading of the meter which is required to be installed by the opposite parties as per instructions of the PSEB. On receipt of this notice the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and inquired about the amount demanded by the opposite party but they 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 11.1.2010 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 this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as the amount sought to be charged relates to compensation on account of theft of energy which can only be challenged before the appropriate competent authority as prescribed by the Electricity Act, 2003, so the present complaint is not maintainable. The connection in question was checked by Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement, PSEB, Moga alongwith other staff of the Enforcement wing on 24.12.2009 in the presence of the complainant and both the ME seals of the energy meter were found tampered. Checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of the complainant and is duly signed by Senior Xen, Enforcement and other staff and the complainant also signed the same admitting it to be correct and without raising any objection against it. Videography of the tampered meter was also done at the spot in the presence of the complainant. Copy of the checking report was also supplied to the complainant at the spot who received the same without raising a little finger against the report. On merits, it was alleged among other things that the amount has been rightly demanded through notice No. 3715 dated 30.12.2009 and then through final notice No. 267 dated 2.2.2010 on account of theft of energy being committed by the complainant by illegal means. Calculation of the load has been rightly made as per spot as mentioned in the checking report dated 24.12.2009. It is the duty of the complainant to keep the meter safe. Payment of bill as per consumption of the meter is wholly irrelevant as the complainant by tampering the ME seals and body of the energy meter was controlling the actual and accurate consumption of the meter. The demand is legal, lawful and as per instructions of 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 affidavits Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, copy of memo No. 3715 Ex.C-3, copy of bill dated 26.12.2009 Ex.C-4, copy of receipt No. 225 Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Mangal Singh AAE Ex.R-1, checking report dated 24.12.2009 Ex.R-2, notice No. 3715 Ex.R-3, memo No. 267 Ex.R-4, affidavit of Surinder Pal Singh Sr. Xen Ex.R-5, affidavit of Lahora Singh Ex.R-6, compact disc Ex.R-7, copy of calculation sheet Ex.R-8 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 the action of the opposite parties for charging Rs. 20,346/- vide notice Ex.C-3 dated 30.12.2009 allegedly on the ground of theft supported by checking report Ex.R-2 is illegal and unjustified. It is further argued that meter of the complainant has been installed by the opposite parties outside his premises for about two years back in the MCB and the complainant was receiving supply through the said meter. The allegations of tampering of both the ME seals is baseless and vague as it is not disclosed how the said seals were tampered. He further argued that note under Commercial Circular No. 50/95 which has further been carried in the year 2004 envisages that where fake seals or tampered seals are detected or ME seals are found broken/missing and removed, the meter can be opened and actual consumption recorded come to the conclusion that consumer has been indulging in theft of energy. However, in the present case there is nothing on record that such a course was resorted to, therefore theft of energy merely on the ground of remarks given in the checking report Ex.R-2 is not established. Therefore, complaint filed by Jagroop Singh deserves to be accepted.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however challenged the aforesaid contentions on the ground that checking report has been proved by Er. Surinder Pal Singh, Senior Xen Enforcement, PSEB, Moga by way of his duly sworn affidavit Ex.R-5 and Lahora Singh AAE by his affidavit Ex.R-6 further. Connected load at the time of checking was found to be 3.133 KW against sanctioned load of 1.41 KW. A bare reference of bill dated 26.12.2009 Ex.C-4 would show that in 19 days there was consumption of 97 units which is far less than the load in use by the consumer. Still further, despite notice Ex.R-3 complainant did not file any representation or challenged the findings of officers/officials of the opposite parties inspite of the fact that checking was made in his presence and videography was also done as brought on record in the shape of CD Ex.R-7. In support of his contentions heavy reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur and others Versus Harsh Wood Products and another AIR-1996 Supreme Court-2258 and judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Ravinder Kumar Nayyar Versus The Punjab State Electricity Board and another 2004(1) CPC-114.

10. After having considered the contentions of either side in the light of evidence on record we have found that theft of energy in this case stands sufficiently proved. There is no denial of the fact that checking in this case was made on 24.12.2009 in the presence of the complainant. Besides recording the connected load the detail of points is also given by the checking staff which included Er. Surinder Pal Singh, Sr. Xen Enforcement, PSEB, Moga and Lahora Singh AAE who noted the meter reading as 10532. Both the ME seals were tampered and MTC absent. It was specifically noted in the report itself that both the ME seals were found tampered. This fact was endorsed by the complainant and has been further confirmed from the videography done at the spot and produced in the form of CD Ex.R-7. Complainant failed to explain the stands under which the seals were found tampered. The fact of theft of energy stands confirmed from the consumption as noted in bill Ex.C-4 as in barely 19 days there was consumption of 97 units which is far less than the required in view of the load of the meter installed in the premises of the complainant. In more or less similar situation Hon’ble Apex Court observed in Harsh Woods Product case supra that theft is prima facie proved and hearing before disconnection in such a case is not necessary. In Ravinder Kumar Nayyar case supra meter seals were found tampered and this fact was detected in the presence of representative of the complainant. Order of District Forum dismissing the complaint was upheld by the Hon’ble State Commission. In para 6 of the above findings it was observed that the seals were found broken then there is no need even for getting the meter checked. In our view, in the light of clear findings as noted above commercial circular pressed into service by the counsel for the complainant is of no help.

11. In the light of our aforesaid observations and findings, the complaint filed by Jagroop Singh is found to be meritless and as such the same is dismissed. 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: 13.7.2010

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