DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/218 of 26.3.2010 Decided on: 20.8.2010 Arjan Dass alias Ayan Dass, aged about 55 years, son of Sh.Jindu Ram r/o H.No.47-A,Gandhi Colony, Rajpura Town, District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board ,The Mall, Patiala. 2. S.D.O. East Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board ,Rajpura. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sarv Sh.B.M.Singh & K.S.Sidhu, Advocates For opposite parties: Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Arjan Dass alias Ayan Dass has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That the complainant is consumer of Punjab State Electricity Board, having electricity connection bearing account No.P32MF030296Y, which is installed at the residential premises of the complainant at H.No.47-A,Gandhi Colony, Rajpura Town. The sanctioned connected load is 7.00KW. That the complainant is using the supply of electricity for the domestic purposes only and is paying the charges for the consumption of energy on the said connection regularly and nothing is pending against him. That the meter reader of the opposite party no.2 reported that meter of the complainant became defective and as such needs replacement. Accordingly ALM of the opposite parties replaced the defective meter with new one in the month of February 2010. He took the defective meter with him openly without packing it in any card board box etc. Neither he has got the box sealed nor got the signatures on any seal of the complainant or his representative. That the complainant was shocked when he received a demand notice No.356 dated 18.3.2010 alleging therein that the meter which was replaced from his premises was got checked from ME Lab Patiala on 11.3.2010 and as per report there was a small hole in the meter and there were also scratches on the counter. On the basis of the said false report the opposite party no.2 has raised a demand of Rs.51987/- on account of theft of energy plus Rs.21000/- as compounding fee totaling Rs.72987/- and directed to deposit the same immediately. That the complainant made a representation to the opposite party no.2 on 19.3.2010 which is with the opposite parties, stating therein that he is a respectable/honest person and never indulged himself into the theft of electricity and moreso neither any notice of checking of the meter in the ME Lab has been served upon him nor the meter in question was checked in the ME lab in his presence and requested the opposite parties to withdraw the demand notice dated 18.3.2010 but the opposite parties refused to consider the request of the complainant and directed him to deposit the amount within the stipulated period failing which the connection of the complainant would be disconnected and further necessary action would be taken against him accordingly,. That the demand notice No.356 dated 18.3.2010 amounting to Rs.51987/- on account of theft of energy plus Rs.21000/- as compounding fee totaling Rs.72987/- is illegal, ultra virus, malafide , without jurisdiction and is liable to be ignored and quashed. That the opposite parties have caused huge loss and mental agony by issuing the said illegal demand notice dated 18.3.2010 and the order of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice as such the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10000/-from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the electricity connection bearing account No.P-32MF030296Y was removed and replaced as per laid down procedure vide MCO No.047/71252 since the above stated meter was reported to have become defective and the same was duly packed and sealed at the time of its removal and replacement as per laid down procedure, rules and regulations and the same was subsequently sent for its thorough checking vide challan No.1 dated 11.3.2010 to the ME Lab, P.S.E.B., Patiala and it was found vide above stated challan that whNo d/ p/; d/ fgZS/ ;[oky wko e/ ohfvzr Bkb S/V SkV ehsh j? ns/ whNo s/ ;eo?u jB which amounts to theft of energy by illegal means by the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay for the same as per rules. That based on the above stated checking report a legal demand memo No.356 dated 18.3.2010 amounting to Rs.72987/- was made upon the complainant since he was found to be indulging in theft of energy by illegal means.That the complainant is liable to pay since the meter has been checked by the authorized and competent authority of P.S.E.B.(now PSPC) i.e. ME Lab, P.S.E.B., Patiala and there is no illegality in it. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The allegation of opposite parties is that the meter of account No.P32 MF030296Y was removed and replaced vide meter change order No.047/71252 since the meter has been reported to have become defective. The meter so removed was sent to M.E.Lab. P.S.E.B., Patiala vide challan No.1 dated 11.3.2010,Ex.R3 and it was found by the M.E.Lab that reading of the meter was interfered by making a hole on the base of back of the meter and that there were scratches on the meter also. On the basis of the checking report,Ex.R3 dated 11.3.2010 by the M.E.Lab, Patiala the impugned memo,Ex.C3 was issued against the complainant. 7. The perusal of the record would show that the M.E.Lab report,Ex.R3 does not bear the signatures or attestation by the consumer or his representative. Even Er.Jaskaran Singh has not deposed in his affidavit,Ex.R2 that the checking of the meter has been conducted in the presence of the complainant or his representative. Even other wise also the opposite parties have produced no evidence that any notice was given to the consumer regarding the checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab. It is mandatory to give notice to the consumer to remain present during the meter checking proceedings in the M.E.Lab. So all the proceedings in the M.E.Lab were conducted behind the complainant. It has been stated in the reply that it was a case of theft of energy which was a criminal offence but no evidence has been produced that any case was registered against the complainant for the alleged criminal offence. In any case proper procedure should have been adopted by the opposite parties in order to prove that it was a case of theft of energy by the complainant. The complainant can not be condemned un heard. Therefore, we hold that the demand has been raised against the rules and regulations and is liable to be quashed. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion we are clearly of the view that the opposite parties have failed to establish their case of theft of electricity on the part of the complainant. 9. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:20.8.2010. President Member
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | , | | 
