DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.247 of 14-06-2010 Decided on 30-11-2010
Pardeep Singh son of Gursewak Singh, resident of Gali No.4, Jujhar Singh Nagar, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Cantt, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.J.D.Nayyar, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the complainant has filed the present complaint with allegations against the opposite parties that he is holding domestic connection No.B11JS360973W since long. The complainant got a memo No.64 dated 28.04.2010 received on 12.05.2010 for a sum of Rs.19,297/- on the basis of checking report dated 20.04.2010. The said demand has been raised on the basis of said checking that both ME seals of the meter were found tempered and body of the meter was found opened by tempering the ME seals, internal mechanism was tempered after opening the body of the meter. So, this is a case of theft. The complainant alleged that the alleged checking dated 20.04.2010 was never made in the presence of the complainant, only load was recorded. The complainant never committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly. The complainant further alleged that he was neither given any hearing nor gave a chance to file objections by the opposite parties. The condition of the meter was never shown to the complainant at the time of installation. The complainant neither tempered the alleged ME seals nor opened the body of the meter. The old meter of the complainant was changed as per scheme of the board and new meter was installed in the public street. The removed meter was neither checked in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant nor any notice from ME Lab was ever received by the complainant. He further alleged that the removed meter was neither packed or sealed in card board box in his presence nor the signatures were obtained by the opposite parties. No formula or explanation has been given by the opposite parties on what rate under which provision the alleged amount of Rs.19,297/- has been raised. No final order of assessment has been given to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have pleaded in their written statement that the electricity connection of the complainant had been checked on 20.04.2010 by officials of the opposite parties and on checking, it had been found that both the ME seals of the meter were found to have been tempered and meter body was found open. So, it is a case of theft of energy and unauthorized use of electricity. The checking report was prepared at the spot in accordance of what had been detected and officials of the opposite parties had signed the same. The complainant who was present at the spot, had signed the said checking report in token of its correctness. A copy of the checking report was given to the complainant and as such, the opposite parties have issued a provisional order of assessment bearing memo No.64 dated 28.04.2010 to the complainant for unauthorized use of electricity, making a demand of Rs.19,297/- which had been calculated as per rules (i.e.L x D x H x PF % = Units x Tariff x 2 x 12 months) as the recoverable amount and an FIR had been recorded against the complainant on the basis of the said theft. The opposite parties further asked the complainant to deposit Rs.12,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings and in case he did not agree with this provisional order, he could file the objections, if any, within 15 days from the date of notice with SE/Dy CE DS Circle, Bathinda but the complainant did not file any objection to the provisional order of assessment. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The complainant got a memo No.64 dated 28.04.2010 which he received on 12.05.2010 u/s 135 of Electricity Act to the tune of Rs.19,297/- on the basis of checking report dated 20.04.2010. At the time of checking, both the ME seals of the meter were found tempered with and meter body was also found opened, internal mechanism was also found tempered with. The meter is installed out side the premises of the complainant i.e. in the street. The opposite parties have submitted that the checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of the complainant who has also signed the checking report. The checking report was handed over to him at the spot. A provisional order of assessment bearing memo No.64 dated 28.04.2010 u/s 135 of Indian Electricity Act and CC No.53/2006 and Regulation No.37 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. for unauthorized use of electricity, for a demand of Rs.19,297/- had been issued to the complainant. The opposite parties in para No.4 of their written statement on merits had admitted that the meter is installed outside the house of the complainant. The meter of the complainant was checked by the flying squad, theft was very apparent and meter was not sent to ME Lab. The meter of the complainant was not removed and when it was not removed, then there was no need to pack or seal it. The opposite parties have further submitted that the provisional order of assessment was issued late due to shortage of staff and procedural formalities which were to be carried out by them. 6. A perusal of checking report Ex.R-2 shows that sanctioned load of the complainant is 3.85KW, whereas, the connected load was found as 3.453KW, which means that sanctioned load as well as connected load were almost same. MCB and MTC seals were missing. It has been written on the checking report that both the ME seals of the meter were found tempered with and meter body was tempered after opening it. The meter has not been removed and sent to the ME Lab. Although the checking was done by flying squad yet it was mandatory to remove the meter pack it in the card board box then seal it properly. But in the present case, the meter has not been sent to ME Lab. Without the report of ME Lab how the tempering of seals can be ascertained. The support can be sought be the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Dakshin Haryana Bijli Nigam Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar 2007(2)CPC 486, wherein, it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Electricity – Imposition of penalty – Penalty was imposed on complainant as M&T seals were found tempered with and digits were found disturbed – Charges of theft of energy were levelled – It was not clear from checking report as how the seals were tempered with – Meter could not show any reading if it was defective – Order of penalty set aside – Order of refund of deposited amount with 18% interest is just and proper – Petition dismissed.” 7. The meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant, where the meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant, such the meter has to be guarded by the opposite parties. The complainant has no control over such meter. As per the regulation No. 21.2 (C) Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, wherein, it has been mentioned that:- “The Licensee may require a meter to be installed outside the premises of a consumer and in such an event, the entire cost of installing the meter outside the premises and providing a display unit within the premises will be borne by the Licensee. However, the cost of display unit will be treated as part of the meter cost while determining meter rentals. In a case where the meter/metering equipment is installed by the Licensee outside the premises of a consumer, the consumer will not be responsible for the protection of the meter from theft or damage.” 8. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.19,297/-. The complainant has already deposited Rs.6,500/-. The opposite parties are directed to refund the said amount i.e. Rs.6,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 30.11.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
| 
