DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 161 of 3.6.2008 Decided on : 20.8.2008 <br /> <br /> Parshotam Dass S/o Sh. Hakam Chand, R/o Gandhi Market, Bathinda through is Special Power of Attorney Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Piara Singh, R/o Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chief Engineer, Opposite GNDTP, Bathinda.<br /> 2.SDO/AEE, Punjab State Electricity Board, City Sub Division, Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Sandeep Baghla, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Deepak Gupta, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to set-aside impugned amount of Rs. 41,863/- raised vide memo No. 566 dated 17.4.2008 being illegal, null and void and not payable by him; refund any payment paid out of the impugned amount subsequent to the filing of the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% P.A from the date of deposit till realization; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and hardship, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant may be stated as under :-<br /> He is holder of electricity connection bearing A/c No. GM 44/426 under NRS category. He is paying electricity consumption bills regularly. Notice No. 566 dated 17.4.2008 was issued to him by the opposite parties raising demand of Rs. 41,683/- alleging that he was committing theft of electricity. Opposite parties were approached for getting demand raised set-aside but to no effect. He assails the demand as illegal,null and void, inoperative and against the statutory provisions on the ground that impugned notice issued by the opposite parties is merely an eye-wash. Opposite party No. 2 without compliance of the mandatory provisions and without affording personal opportunity of hearing and without making any assessment of final amount and serving the same upon him, has no right to disconnect the electricity supply; meter was not packed and thereafter checked in the M.E Lab in his presence or in the presence of his representative; no notice was ever issued to him for checking the meter in the M.E Lab in his presence nor was he ever joined at the time of checking; opposite parties have failed to establish any theft of energy; meter installed in his premises was installed in the meter Cup Board (MCB) which was duly sealed by the opposite parties and as such, the allegation of tampering it is false as there was no approach to the meter; Meter Reader was taking the meter reading every month and no alleged tampering was ever pointed out by him; meter installed in his premises was an electronic one and there is conspicuous absence of any alleged manner or mechanism of the meter having been disturbed in the impugned memo; copy of the alleged checking report was not supplied to him; demand is contrary to the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, statutory regulations and commercial circulars. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint; it is not maintainable in its present form; complainant has not come with clean hands; he is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, they admit that complainant is holder of electricity connection. Inter-alia, their plea is that complainant was indulging in theft of electricity. Meter installed in his premises was defective as is clear from the bills dated 30.11.2007 and 28.1.2008 which were issued on average basis. In those bills the status of the meter has been recoded as 'D' means defective. That meter was removed and new meter No. 279510 was installed. Removed meter was sent to the M.E Lab and was checked under the rules on 4.3.2008. As per checking, it was found that both the M.E seals of the meter were tampered with and it was a clear-cut case of theft of electricity. Accordingly, complainant was issued memo No. 566 dated 17.4.2008 directing him to submit his objections against the provisional assessment but he failed. Complaint is pre-mature and is liable to be dismissed. They deny that the demand is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Parshotam Dass complainant tendered into evidence affidavit (Ex.C.1) of Sh. Ravinder Singh, his Special Power of Attorney, (Ex.C.2), photocopies of bills (Ex.C.3 to Ex.C.5), photocopy of Provisional Order of Assessment (Ex.C.6) and photocopy of payment receipt (Ex.C.7). <br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3) of S/Sh. Raj Kumar Singla, AE/SDO, Krishan Kumar, AJE and Atma Singh, J.E respectively, photocopy of Store Challan (Ex.R.4 & Ex.R.5), photocopy of MCO dated 3.12.2007 (Ex.R.6) & photocopy of one page of Exceptional list (Ex.R.7).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. Copy of the impugned provisional order of assessment sent vide memo No. 566 dated 17.4.2008 is Ex.C.6. Demand of Rs.41,863/- has been raised. Ex.C.2 is the copy of the Special Power of Attorney given by the complainant to Sh. Ravinder Singh. Sh. Ravinder Singh in his affidavit Ex.C.1 reiterates the version in the complaint.<br /> 8. Mr. Baghla learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that impugned demand raised through memo No. 566 dated 17.4.2008, copy of which is Ex.C.6, is illegal, arbitrary, null and void and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 9. Mr. Gupta learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that meter installed in the premises of the complainant was defective and as such, it was changed on 16.1.2008 vide MCO dated 3.12.2007, copy of which is Ex.R.6. This meter was replaced in routine checking alongwith other meters and for this, there is affidavit Ex.R.3 of Sh. Atma Singh J.E. After installlation of the new meter, removed meter was handed over to Sh. Krishan Kumar AJE who had taken it to the M.E Lab and it was checked in the M.E Lab in his presence where its both the M.E seals were found tampered. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavit Ex.R.2 of Sh. Krishan Kumar AJE. Fact that seals were tampered was recorded in the performance record of electronic meters, copy of which is Ex.R.4. He further argued that on the basis of the report, amount has been rightly demanded from the complainant.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments. According to the copies of the electricity consumption bills dated 30.11.2007 and 28.1.2008 meter No. 2633 was previously installed in the premises of the complainant, whereas in the MCO meter No. 2673 has been shown to have been changed with another meter No. 279569. Contention of the opposite parties that meter was changed in routine checking, is unfounded and baseless. They have specifically averred in the reply of the complaint that meter installed in the premises of the complainant was defective as the status of the meter in the bills dated 30.11.2007 and 28.1.2008 was 'D' means defective and defective meter was replaced with a new one bearing No. 279569. In such a situation, when opposite parties are well aware that meter is defective and they are to get it checked from the M.E Lab, it was incumbent upon them to put it in the card board box in the presence of the complainant or his representative, seal it and then to obtain the signatures of the consumer or his representative. The evidence to this effect is lacking. Meter has been shown to have been checked in the M.E Lab on 4.3.2008. Meter was sent to the M.E Lab through challan, copy of which is Ex.R.4. Meter installed in the premises of the complainant as per bills, copies of which are Ex.C.4 & Ex.C.5, was No. 2633. Meter which has been shown to have been checked in the M.E Lab is No. 002673. Even if it is taken for arguments sake that due to inadvertence or clerical mistake meter number has been recorded in the MCO and Performance Record of Electronic Meters as 2673 in place of 2633, even then, there is contravention of the principles of natural justice. Admittedly, no notice has been issued to the consumer apprising him the date, time and place of checking of the meter in his presence or in the presence of his representative. When it is so, the demand raised cannot be maintained. For this, reference may be made to the authorities Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (HVPN) Vs. Gautam Plastic-I(2008)CPJ-62(NC), Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Karamjit Singh-2009(1)CPR-296, Punjab State Electricity Board & Another Vs. Sham Sunder-2005(3)CPR-670 and Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Daljit Kaur-I(2004) CPJ-48. It is not known who was the officer in the M.E Lab who had checked the meter. No separate report of checking in the M.E Lab has been prepared nor copy of the same has been supplied or sent to the complainant. He has been condemned unheard. This unilateral performance record of electronic meters, copy of which is Ex.R.4, cannot be given any weight. Apart from this, it is also worth mentioning that there is no affidavit of the concerned officer/official who checked the meter in the M.E Lab. It is also worth mentioning that mere allegation of tampering of seals of the meter does not constitute theft, particularly when manner and mode in which alleged theft was being committed, are not known. For this, we get support from the observations in the authorities Gurcharan Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr.-II(2007)CPJ-282 & Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar-III(2007)CPJ-410(NC).<br /> 11. the premises written above, we are of the view that demand of Rs. 41,863/- raised by opposite parties is certainly against their commercial circulars and regulations. It is also violative of the principles of natural justice. Hence, it is liable to be set-aside. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established.<br /> 12. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our forgoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw the demand raised through memo no. 566 dated 17.4.2008 as it is illegal, null and void and arbitrary. Further direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties is to refund the amount already deposited by the complainant out of the amount of Rs. 41,863/- vide receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.7, alongwith interest. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused harassment and hardship to the complainant for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> 13. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> (i) Withdraw the demand of Rs. 41,863/- raised through memo No. 566 dated 17.4.2008, copy of which is Ex.C.6.<br /> (ii) Refund Rs.20,500/- deposited by the complainant vide receipt No. 118 dated 10.6.2008, copy of which is Ex.C.7, alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the date of deposit i.e. 10.6.2008 till payment.<br /> (iii) Pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> (iv) Compliance with regard to payment of costs and compensation be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 14. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 20.8.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member <br /> 'bsg' <br />