BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 93

Date of Institution : 8.4.2010

Date of Decision : 14.9.2010

Manpreet Singh aged about 26 years S/o Balwinder Singh, resident of Street No. 16, Dogar Basti, 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. B.B. Khurana counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for charging the amount of Rs. 3732/- vide letter No. 4151 dated 22.3.2010 issued to the complainant pertaining to Account No. RB 85/0254 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, the case of the complainant is that he is consumer of the opposite parties using domestic electric connection Account No. RB 85/0254 running in the name of the father of the complainant who has since been expired. Complainant is using the electricity as beneficiary of the connection and paying the bills. He received letter No. 4151 dated 22.3.2010 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which the demand of Rs. 3,732/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking dated 29.3.2010 by MI Faridkot on account of theft of electricity. No copy of alleged checking report has ever been supplied to the complainant at any point of time not even with the letter of demand inspite of the fact note regarding attachment of copy is given on the checking report. The complainant never committed any theft of electricity as alleged in the letter No. 4151 dated 22.3.2010. The complainant is using the electricity through the meter and paying the bill as per consumption of the meter. 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 but now the formula to calculate the load has been changed. Moreover, the complainant has installed CFL tubes of 10/15 Watts at his premises as per guidelines of the PSEB to save the electricity. On receipt of letter No. 4151 dated 22.3.2010 complainant immediately visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and enquired about the amount demanded by the opposite party. The complainant requested the opposite party No. 2 to supply the copy of alleged checking report but no copy of the alleged checking report was supplied to the complainant. 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 9.4.2010 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 is suppressing the true facts from this Forum that his meter connection was checked by MI Shivtar Singh and Harbans Lal on 19.3.2010 and it was found that the complainant had tampered the meter intentionally, so it is a case of theft of energy. The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties as the connection is in the name of Balwinder Singh son of Charan Singh whereas the complaint has been filed by some Manpreet Singh. On merits, it was alleged among other things that the connection is in the name of Balwinder Singh, so the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. He cannot be considered as consumer or beneficiary until and unless he executes A and A form with the opposite parties. It is admitted that the opposite parties have issued notice No. 4151 dated 22.3.2010 for Rs. 3732/- as charges on the basis of checking dated 19.3.2010 for tampering of meter and as per rules as it is a case of theft of energy being committed by the complainant by unfair means. The checking was done by MI Shivtar Singh and Harbans Lal on 19.3.2010. The exact date of checking of the above connection is 19.3.2010 not 22.12.2009 as mentioned by the complainant. The connection was checked on 19.3.2010 in the presence of Charanjit Kaur. A checking report No. FDK 112/28 was made, it was read out to Charanjit Kaur who endorsed it correct and put her RTI on the said checking report. A copy of the above report was supplied to Charanjit Kaur on the spot immediately. At that time it was detected that complainant had tampered the M&T seals and rejoined them and the joint of meter body was broken intentionally. The calculations have been shown on the notice. As per consumer's version the reading of the meter on 9.12.2009 is 2657 and not 2791, whereas according to the record available to the opposite parties the reading on 9.12.2009 is 2791 as per spot billing and reading on 19.3.2010 is 2763 as per checking report. The consumer had been committing theft of energy by tampering the meter and running back the meter reading. Otherwise, there would have been No I code status of the meter on the bill dated 31.10.2009, in which the old reading is 2791 and the new reading is 2614 i.e new reading is less than the old reading. The consumer had tampered the meter before 31.10.2009 and its reading was more than 2614. A PDCO No. 96217 dated 25.3.2010 has been effected. The meter has been removed and seal packed in the presence of Charanjit Kaur who refused to sign on the above paper seal affixed on the card board box. 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, notice No. 4151 Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 31.10.2009 Ex.C-3, bill dated 24.12.2009 Ex.C-4, copy of application dated 11.12.2009 Ex.C-5, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-6, affidavit of Charanjit Kaur Ex.C-7, copy of death certificate of Balwinder Singh Ex.C-8, copy of receipt No. 125 Ex.C-9 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 AEE Ex.R-1, copy of PDCO dated 25.3.2010 Ex.R-2, copy of RCO dated 17.5.2010 Ex.R-3, copy of checking report dated 19.3.2010 Ex.R-4, letter No. 4151 Ex.R-5, affidavit of Shivtar Singh, Meter Inspector 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. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that action of the opposite parties for charging Rs. 3732/- to the account of the complainant vide letter dated 22.3.2010 Ex.C-2 allegedly on the basis of theft found on checking dated 19.3.2010 is illegal and unlawful. As a matter of fact, checking in this case was allegedly made by JE who is unauthorized for the purpose. A direction was made for seal packing the meter on physical facts and status of the meter. No report prior thereto in regard to the alleged tampering of meter body was ever made. Meter was not seal packed on the spot not produced in the ME Lab. Thumb impression of Charanjit Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh who is father of the complainant was obtained without making her aware of status of the meter. In the representation made by the complainant's mother on 11.12.2009 the reading is stated as 2791 in regard to bill dated 9.12.2009 whereas it was 2657 units on the date of the application which was apparently wrong and showed false reporting and working of the opposite parties.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however contended that the complainant is not consumer as electric connection in question is in the name of Balwinder Singh son of Charan Singh. Further, the checking in this case was made in the presence of mother of the complainant and report Ex.R-4 was also prepared on the spot and was endorsed by her mother by putting her right thumb impression thereupon. Copy of checking report was supplied to her on the spot. Difference of reading in bill Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 has to do nothing with the said report as it was made on reporting of the Meter Reader who is not supposed to check the position of the meter.

10. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. There is no denial of the fact that JE is not authorized under the notification issued by the Punjab Government under Section 135 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the position with regard to status of the electricity meter on physical checking thereof by an employee of the electricity board cannot be outrightly discarded. In such an eventuality where the meter has been checked by an unauthorized employee of the electricity board strict proof is required to prove the alleged checking and apparent result thereof. In the instant case checking was made in the presence of the mother of the complainant and same was endorsed also by her by way of putting her thumb impression on the checking report. Supplementary affidavit Ex.C-6 that too given by Manpreet Singh complainant instead of her mother that thumb impression of her mother was obtained by the employees of the opposite parties without disclosing the contents of the alleged checking report is merely an afterthought as no protest in this respect is made in the complaint nor got recorded in the checking report by her mother. Surprisingly, affidavit of mother of the complainant in this respect which was necessary to explain the things has not been tendered. In the checking report there are clear observations that M&T seals of the electric meter had been tampered and re-affixed. Besides, joint of the body of the meter was also found disturbed. The aforesaid observations qua the electric meter in question is clear pointer of the fact it was a case of abstraction of electricity illegally. These findings can further be supported from the bills produced by the complainant Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 which clearly show the reading to be decreasing by giving a difference of 43 units which is not possible in the case of sanctioned load of 2.9 KW. In so far as the question of complainant being not consumer is concerned the same has not been found to be of much weight. The connection in this case is in the name of Balwinder Singh who is none else but father of Manpreet Singh complainant. Formality to seek his power of attorney by the complainant before filing the complaint which is technical cannot over emphasized in the proceedings before the Forum.

11. In view of our above observations and findings we are of the considered opinion that theft of energy in this case is clearly proved. Therefore, in our view the complaint filed by the complainant Manpreet Singh is devoid of merits and as such the same is dismissed. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Copies of order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 14.9.2010

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