Complainant Suchint Kumari through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.24,843/- raised vide impugned notice bearing memo No.351 dated 29.02.2016 and also restrain the opposite parties from recovering the alleged amount of Rs.24,843/- from the complainant. Complainant has also claimed Rs.20,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 18% Per Annum from the date of due till its actual realization along with litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that she had installed an electric meter bearing Account No.3000158825 of 3 Phase in her house for domestic purpose and hiring the services of the opposite parties and as such she is the consumer of the opposite parties and had regularly been paying the electricity charges to the opposite parties without any default. It was pleaded that in the month of August, 2015 the officials of the opposite parties had removed the electric meter of the complainant and installed new meter and at the time of removing the earlier meter no notice was served upon the complainant and the same had not been sealed, packed in the Card Board and no such consent was taken from the complainant for the removal of the electric meter and for checking the same in the M.E. Lab. It was further pleaded that a notice bearing memo No.351 dated 29.02.2016 amounting to Rs.24,843/- was issued to the complainant by the opposite parties in which it was alleged that the above said meter was checked in the M.E. Lab. on 09.02.2016 and it was found that 2 phase of electric meter was dead but this fact is totally wrong as no such interference was made by the complainant with the meter in question and it was also clear from the seals of the meter which were remained intact at its last moment. It was also pleaded that impugned notice was illegal, null & void, vague and in contravention of the Electricity Rules and question of payment of the alleged amount does not arise as complainant had never made any interference with meter in question. It was next pleaded that new meter which was installed by the officials of the opposite parties was also faulty as the status of the said meter was shown as “D”. It was pleaded that complainant had also requested the opposite parties to admit his claim but they refused to admit the same rather threatened her that they will recover the impugned amount from her illegally, forcibly and by using coercive methods and due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties complainant had suffered great loss and mental harassment and as such there was clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action had accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint and complaint filed by the complainant was vexatious one and deserves to be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it was stated that mechanical meter of the complainant was changed with electronic meter vide MCO No.100001078139 dated 23.07.2015 which was effected on 14.08.2015 and the same was duly packed and sealed in the card board box and the signatures of the complainant was duly obtained on the same. It was stated that removed meter was sent to M.E. Lab. Gurdaspur vide Challan No.27 dated 09.02.2016 and the same was checked in the M.E. Lab. on 09.02.2016 in the presence of XEN Enforcement Batala and prior to it consent of the complainant was also duly obtained for checking the meter in the M.E. Lab. in her absence and it was reported by the M.E. Lab. that red and yellow phase of the meter were found dead and only blue phase of the meter was working and as such it was a case of theft of electricity. It was further stated that as per the instructions of the PSPCL the account of the complainant was overhauled for a period of 6 months immediately preceding date of change of meter by multiplying the actual consumption of the meter three times and as such a sum of Rs.24,843/- was worked out. It was also stated complainant was served through notice no.51 dated 29.02.2016 by which she was asked to deposit theft compensation of Rs.24,843/- with the opposite parties but inspite of receiving the same she had failed to deposit Rs.24,843/- as theft compensation and as such the amount charged by the opposite parties was legal. It was next stated that amount charged by the opposite parties was legal and the question of withdrawing the same does not arise at all and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties was also denied. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with document Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Harmanjit Singh Gill SDO Ex.OP-1 along with document Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
6. We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties, heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose adjudication of the present complaint.
7. That the complainant has got installed an electric meter bearing Account No.3000158825 of 3 Phase in his house for domestic purpose. In the month of August 2015, the official of the opposite parties have removed the electric meter and installed new meter. The opposite parties removed the earlier meter of the complainant without notice to the complainant. It is further stated by the complainant that at the time of removal of the electric meter, it was not sealed, packed in the card board. At no point of time, the officials of the opposite parties have taken consent of the complainant for removal of the electric meter and for checking of the same in the M.E. Lab. On the other hand opposite parties had admitted that meter of the complainant was changed and replaced meter was duly packed and sealed in the card board box and the signature of the complainant was obtained on it. The removed mechanical meter was sent to M.E. Lab. Gurdaspur. The meter was checked in the M.E. Lab. on dated 9.2.2016 and prior to that no consent of the complainant was obtained for checking of the meter in M.E. Lab. in the absence of the complainant. But on the perusal of it has transpired that no notice has been served upon the complainant before removing the electric meter and installing the new meter. Moreover, no notice has been issued before checking the meter in M.E. Lab. to the complainant. No consent memo or consent letter has been placed on record before checking the meter in the absence of the complainant. No record has been produced of alleged packing of meter in the presence of complainant. The opposite parties have not produced the relevant record on the file. Moreover, meter was not checked by the opposite parties from M.E. Lab. in the presence of complainant, which act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
8. In the light of our above observation and findings, complaint filed by complainant is partly allowed and the impugned demand of the opposite parties of Rs.24,843/- raised vide impugned notice bearing memo No.351 dated 29.2.2016 is held illegal, null and void and as such is set aside. If the complainant has deposited any amount against this demand be refunded to the complainant besides payment of Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of order be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order failing which opposite parties shall refund the deposited amount @ 9% interest from the date of order till actual payment.
- Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
AUG. 26, 2016 Member.
*YP*
