DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 56 of 22-02-2008<br /> Decided on :16-04-2008 <br /> <br /> Jeewan Kumar aged about 42 years S/o Sh. Ved Parkash R/o Railway Road, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary<br /> 2.Assistant Executive Engineer, D.S. Sub Division, P.S.E.B. Bhucho Mandi.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties <br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Abhey Singla, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw Memo No. 199 dated 15.2.08 whereby demand of Rs. 40,528/- has been raised or quash the same; pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and botheration besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. AD-12/149-D/S P with sanctioned load of 5.72 KW has been installed at his residential premises in the name of his father Ved Parkash who has since died on 26.10.98. He (Complainant) is using electricity connection and is regularly paying the electricity consumption bills issued from time to time. In the month of January, 2008, he had started repair/renovation work of his house. Intimation regarding this fact was orally given to the official of the opposite parties. Meter was removed from the place where it was previously installed. Thereafter it was hanged outside with peg made of nail to avoid loss to it. All the seals on it were okay and no defect of any kind was pointed out. Meter was bearing the load correctly. Despite this, Memo No. 199 dated 15.2.08 was received by him from the opposite parties vide which demand of Rs. 40,528/- has been raised although nothing was due against him. He did not commit theft of electricity. He assails this demand as illegal, unjustified, without any basis, against rules and regulations. It is further added by him that no checking was ever made in his presence. No official ever pointed out any defect in the working of the meter although it was checked many a times. Opposite parties are threatening to disconnect his electricity connection without hearing him. Meter was not sent to M.E. Lab nor condition of the meter was shown to him. Meter is still hanging at the spot. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has undergone mental tension, harassment and botheration.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version admitting that complainant is holder of electricity connection. He had started repair/renovation work of his house. Meter was hanged outside with a Nail after removing it from the existing spot. They deny that they were informed about the removal of the meter from the place where it was installed or that it has been hanged by them outside temporarily. Complainant himself or through some other person has got it displaced and has hanged it with a Nail. Connection was checked by AEE Enforcement Bathinda when Sh. Bikkar Singh, Junior Engineer was with him. Complainant was also present at that time. It was found that meter was lying hanged with an iron peg. It was lying tilted in one direction. Its disc was found stopped even on running of load. Load was being used for construction work. In this manner, it was a case of theft of energy. All the facts were entered at page No. 9 of Enforcement Checking Register No. 607 dated 14.2.08. Both AEE Enforcement and J.E. had signed the checking report No. 9/607 dated 14.2.08. Inadvertently signatures of the complainant were not procured on the report. On the basis of the report, opposite party No. 2 had issued provisional order of assessment for unauthorised use of electricity in exercise of the powers under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo No. 199. Whenever balance/alignment of a mechanical gadget is disturbed then that gadget either does not work properly or does not work at all. They deny that demand is illegal, null and void.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of Provisional Order (Ex. C-2), affidavit of Sh. Amarnath (Ex. C-4), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-5) and photocopies of bills (Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-10).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Er. K K Gupta, S.D.O. (Ex. R-1), photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-2) and photocopy of site report of checking by Flying Squad (Ex. R-3) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant are that due to the renovation/repair work of the house of the complainant, meter from the place where it was previously installed was removed by the officials of the opposite parties on the request of the complainant. Thereafter it was hanged with a peg (Nail). All the seals were okay and there was no defect of any kind. Complainant was not committing theft of energy nor meter was got checked from M.E. Lab. In these circumstances impugned memo vide which demand of Rs. 40,528/- has been raised and copy of which is Ex. C-2 is illegal, arbitrary and null and void. Moreover, complainant was not present at the time of checking and the checking report, copy of which is Ex. R-2 does not bear his signatures.<br /> 8. Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments by submitting that theft of energy on the part of the complainant is established from the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Er. K.K. Gupta, S.D.O., copy of the checking report dated 14.2.08 Ex. R-2 and the copy of the site report of checking by Flying Squad Ex. R-3. If due to some inadvertence signatures of the complainant could not be obtained on the checking report, this itself is no ground to disbelieve the other abundant evidence on the record.<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 10. Complainant admits in para No. 4 of the complaint that renovation/repair work of his house was going on in the month of January, 2008. Opposite parties also admit that complainant had started renovation/repair work. As per complainant meter was hanged with Nail outside after removing it from the place where it was installed. Material question for determination is as to whether it was removed on the request of the complainant by the officials of the opposite parties ? For this, there are affidavits of the complainant which are Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-3 and of one Sh. Amar Nath Ex. C-4. They are not worth placing credence. Complainant has not disclosed in the complaint as to whom request was made for changing the position of the meter. He has not named the official to whom request was made for this purpose and by whom position of the meter was changed. Electricity Supply Regulation No. 75 pertains to changing the position of a meter. Regulation No. 75.1 which is relevant is reproduced as under :-<br /> “On receiving a request from the consumer for the change of site of the meter J.E. should visit the site and assess the expenditure involved in such a change. If no material is involved in the job, a fee as laid down in Schedule of General Charges as amended from time to time may be recovered. But if the job involves new material the estimated cost together with 27-1/2% departmental charges, as amended from time to time, should be got deposited before undertaking the job.” <br /> A perusal of Regulation No. 75.1 reveals that consumer is required to make request of change of site of the meter. In this case, there is no request of the complainant in writing to this effect. After request, J.E. has to visit the site and assess the expenditure involved in such a change. For changing the position of the meter, consumer is required to deposit certain amount before the job is undertaken. In this case, complainant has not proved that any amount was deposited by him for changing the position of the meter. Above referred bald affidavits do not advance the cause of the complainant concerning his allegation that meter was changed by the officials of the Board. Moreover, opposite parties have specifically denied that complainant had informed their officials and they had removed the meter from the existing spot and hanged the same outside temporarily with a Nail. To support the plea in the reply of the complaint, there is affidavit of Sh. K.K. Gupta, S.D.O. P.S.E.B. Bhucho Mandi who is in no way interested to submit it against the complainant. Hence complainant has not proved by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence that the position of the meter was changed on his request and that too by the officials of the Board. In the circumstances, no other conclusion can be arrived at than the one that the position of the meter was changed either by the complainant or was got changed by him from some unauthorised person illegally.<br /> 11. Opposite parties are alleging theft of energy. The onus to prove it is upon them. It is evident from Ex. R-1 that AEE Enforcement, P.S.E.B.in the company of Sh. Bikkar Singh, AJE had checked the electricity connection of the complainant in his (complainant's) presence and on checking it was found that meter was hanged on single Nail and it was tilted in one direction. Its disc was found in stopped condition even on running of the load and as such, it was a case of theft of energy. To support it, there is checking report, copy of which Ex. R-2 and the site report of the checking by Flying Squad, copy of which is Ex. R-3. Mere fact that inadvertently checking officials could not obtain the signatures/thumb impression of the complainant on the checking report, would assume no significance in the facts and circumstances of this case particularly when complainant himself admits that position of the meter was changed and it was hanged with a Nail outside as renovation/repair work of his house was going on. As discussed above, he has failed to establish that request was made by him to any official of the Board and thereafter meter was removed from the existing place and was hanged with a Nail outside. 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 on the record that the officials of the opposite parties who had done the checking on 14.2.08 were in any way inimical towards complainant or they had any other animus to make a case of theft against him. Electricity Supply Regulation No. 133.2 is relevant in this. It is reproduced as under :-<br /> “Whenever it is established to the satisfaction of the Board's Authorised Officers that a consumer has indulged in theft of energy through any of the means mentioned in condition No. 43 (quoted hereunder) of the Conditions of Supply, the Board may without prejudice to its other rights cause the supply to the consumer discontinued without any prior notice to the consumer.”<br /> A consumer or any person shall be guilty of theft of electric energy and shall be deemed to have committed a theft of electric energy and shall be deemed to have committed theft where he maliciously causes energy to be wasted or diverted or dishonestly abstracts, consumes, uses, draws any energy by tampering with such meter or its body seals or apparatus or circuits or by manipulating or abstracting or interfering in the functioning of such meter in any manner so as to prevent it from fully and/or correctly registered the energy consumed”. In this case meter was found hanged with one Nail and it was lying in tilted position. Electricity was being used, but the meter disc was found lying stopped. In our view, act of the complainant falls within the purview of theft of energy as envisaged in Electricity Supply Regulation No. 133.2.<br /> 12. On the basis of checking report, impugned memo/provisional order of assessment, copy of which is Ex. C-2 was issued. Learned counsel for the complainant could not show us that the amount charged i.e. Rs. 40,528/- is not as per rules, regulations and circulars of the Board. Since opposite parties have established theft of energy, they are well within their right to raise the demand shown in Ex. C-2. In the circumstances, we conclude that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.<br /> 13. In the result, complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-.<br /> Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 16-04-2008 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member