DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 140

Date of Institution : 20-05-2010

Date of Decision : 01-11-2010

Bikkar Singh aged 70 years s/o S Partap Singh, r/o Guru Tej Bahadur Nagar, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd through its Chairman Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer,(DS) City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd 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 Adv. Ld counsel for the complainant.

Sh. M S Brar Adv. Ld counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

1 Complainant Bikkar Singh has brought the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs for charging the amount of Rs 40,361/- in a bill issued to him on 26-03-2010 as sundry charges qua his account no TD 21/0027 and for a direction to them to withdraw the illegal and unlawful amount so charged and also to replace the burnt meter and to refund Rs 14520/- paid vide receipt no 105 dt 12-04-2010 and to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental tension and Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses.

2 The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the consumer of the OPs having domestic electric connection bearing no TD 21/0027 running in his premises. He is paying all the electricity consumption bills as and when received by him and nothing on account of consumption charges is due towards him. It is pleaded that complainant received a bill issued on 26-03-2010 in which sundry charges of Rs 40,361/- have been entered illegally and unlawfully. No notice has been received by the complainant about the sundry charges charged in the bill. Otherwise also, as per instructions of the Board ( now Corporation) no such amount is to be charged in the bill and only a separate bill is to be rendered in this respect. It is also pleaded that no detail of the amount charged was ever furnished to the complainant. On receipt of the said bill, complainant visited the office of the OP-2 and inquired about the charges levied through sundry charges but he was not supplied any information in this respect. However, OP-2 got deposited Rs 14,520/- from the complainant vide receipt no 105 dt 12-04-2010 with the assurance that excessive amount charged will be refunded in the next bill. However, OPs again issued a bill on 08-05-2010 for a sum of Rs 32,510/- showing therein Rs 31,043/- as arrears. The bill has not been corrected as agreed by OP-2 in the month of April 2010. It is further pleaded that meter of the complainant was burnt and OP-2 is issuing the bill on the basis of average which is excessive. Complainant requested the OP-2 to replace burnt meter time and again but to no result. The complainant after receiving the bill issued on 8-05-2010 approached the OP-2 and requested them to withdraw the illegal and unlawful charges as the complainant is ready to deposit the current consumption bill but they flatly refused to do so rather they threatened to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant if he failed to pay the total amount, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The act and conduct of the OPs has caused great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which he has put up a claim for Rs 20,000/- as compensation and Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

3 The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21-05-2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4 In response to the notice OPs appeared through Sh M S Brar Advocate and filed written statement taking preliminary objection that complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of complainant and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed; that complicated question of law and evidence is involved in the present complaint which requires lengthy process of examination and cross examination besides summoning of the witnesses and record for the purpose. So, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the complaint as amount sought to be charged relates to compensation on account of theft of energy which can only be challenged before the appropriate authority as prescribed in the Electricity Act, 2003. It is also pleaded that infact single phase meter Sr No 874059 make Havells capacity 10-40 Amp with meter reading 12358 relating the account no TD 21/0027 (DS) replaced from the premises of the complainant was sent to ME Lab Moga through Sh Jaswant Singh AJE of City Sub Division Faridkot vide store challan no 43 dt 21-11-2008 for checking. There during checking one number M E seal of the meter was found missing and other was found broken. The case is thus established case of theft of energy within the purview of Section 135 of Electricity Act 2003. Meter Checking Report was prepared at the spot, it was duly signed by Sr XEN Enforcement and AE, M E Lab. On the basis of said report, accounts of complainant were overhauled and amount of Rs 40,361/- was found recoverable by the Audit Party while checking the account of the consumer. On the basis of half margin issued by the Audit Party dt 13-04-2009, the amount of Rs 40,361/- relating to the said meter of the complainant was taken in sundry charges and allowance register which was debited to the account of complainant in the bill issued on 26-03-2010. On receipt of the bill by the complainant, he admitted the amount charged in the bill to be correct and requested the OP-2 to accept the payment under the bill in question in three installments along with amount of current energy bills. On OP-2 allowing payment of amount in three monthly installments along with current energy bills, complainant himself deposited Rs 14,520/- with the OP-2 on 12-04-2010 and an amount of Rs 31043/- remained due and payable by the complainant out of total amount of the bill dt 26-03-2010. Therefore, now, complainant is debarred and estopped from filing the present complaint.

4 .. On merits, more or less same and similar grounds which have been taken by the OPs heretofore have been reiterated to justify the levy of amount in the bill as overhaul charges. It is also alleged that meter subsequently installed was also burnt due to illegal acts of the complainant. However, the burnt meter will be replaced immediately as soon as new meter is made available. The average consumption is charged on the basis of consumption recorded by meter during that period it remained in proper working condition. Other allegations in the complaint were denied with a prayer for dismissal of complaint 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 bills as Ex.C-2 and C-3 and supplementary affidavit as Ex.C-4 and closed the same.

6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Prit Pal Singh Sandhu as Ex.R-1, copy of half margin as Ex R-2, Sundry Charges Allowance Register Ex R-3, checking report as Ex.R-4, again affidavit of Pritpal Singh as Ex.R-5, affidavit of Sh. Jaswant Singh as Ex.R-6 and affidavit of Er Harbhajan Singh as Ex R-7 and closed their evidence.

7 We have heard the ld counsel for the parties. Ld counsel for complainant relying upon the affidavit of Enginner Harbhajan Singh A E, M E Lab PSPC, Moga Ex R-7 has contended that in para no 4 thereof it has been specifically alleged by AE aforesaid that it was not a case of theft of energy, yet the account of the complainant was to be overhauled as one M E seal of the electric meter in question was found broken while the other was found missing.

8 Ld counsel for OPs have however submitted that the account of the complainant is required to be overhauled as per the rules and regulations of the corporation/OPs, as one M E seal of the electric meter in question was found broken while the other was found missing.

9 We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. In the face of clear and unequivocal statements of the Er Harbhajan Singh AE in his duly sworn affidavit Ex R-7 to the effect that though one M E seal of electric meter was found broken and one M E seal was found missing but it was not a case of theft of energy, but as per the rules and regulations of the Corporation the account of the complainant was to be overhauled, it is clear that no theft of energy in this case is either claimed or proved. No rules or regulations has been stated regarding overhauling of the account of the complainant in view of the fact that one ME seal thereof was found broken whereas other was found missing.

10 In the light of the above observations and findings, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted with a direction to the OPs to withdraw the amount of sundry charges as shown in bill issued to the complainant on 26-03-2010. The amount already got deposited from him be adjusted within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Opposite party is however at the liberty to issue fresh demand notice justifying overhauling of the account of the complainant on the basis of missing of one seal of meter and breakage of the other, of course, specifically stating rules and regulations warranting such overhauling of the account of the complainant to enable him to contest the same if so advised. Non compliance of this order will entail proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. However, in peculiar set of circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 01-11-2010.

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

Member President