DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/010/196 of 16.3.2010 Decided on: 26.8.2010 Kaka Singh aged about 72 years r/o Tafazalpura Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala through its Secretary. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer/DS Fort Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, District Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa.Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Mayank Malhotra, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.P.S.Walia, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Kaka Singh 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 holding electric connection bearing No.44/334 under the opposite party no.2 under DS category with sanctioned load of 5.54KW.The complainant has been paying electricity charges as per bills supplied to him. The status of the meter always remained O.K. That on 25.11.2009 at about 8 PM some officials of the opposite parties along with some police officers in a Gypsy came to the residence of the complainant and directed to produce electricity bill and show the electric meter but without checking the meter, told the complainant that there is something wrong with the meter. However, no checking report was prepared or supplied to the complainant. That on 17.12.2009 again a Gypsy comprising police along with some officials of the opposite parties came to the residence of the complainant at about 4.00 PM and enquired about the family members of the complainant from his daughter. On 17.12.2009 the electric meter was neither checked nor any checking report was prepared or supplied to the complainant. That on 18.12.2009 some officials of the opposite parties again came to the residence of the complainant and removed the electric meter from the premises of the complainant and disconnected the electric supply to the residential premises of the complainant. That no checking report has been prepared and delivered to the complainant. The meter so removed from the premises of the complainant was also neither packed nor sealed and the signatures of the complainant were not obtained. That it was to the utter surprise of the complainant when he received letter No.1864 dated 17.12.2009 received on 31.12.2009 whereby the complainant has been directed to pay Rs.37362/- + Rs.18000/- within a period of 7 days. That the memo No.1864 dated 17.12.2009 requiring the complainant to deposit Rs.37362/- + Rs.18000/- with the opposite party no.2 and further action of the opposite parties in removing and disconnecting the electric supply to the residence of the complainant and further not restoring the electricity supply to the residence of the complainant is illegal, null and void, against the principles of natural justice and rules and regulations of the Board itself. That the perusal of the memo dated 17.12.2009 shows that the meter has been removed on the false allegation that the “two seals of the meter have been tampered with and reaffixed.” That no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the complainant before issuing the impugned memo. That the complainant also submitted objections/requests to SE/DS circle, P.S.E.B.Patiala to restore the electricity supply to the premises of the complainant, but nothing has been done so far. That the impugned memo is non speaking. Moreover the impugned memo has been issued with malafide intention. The malafide of the opposite parties is evident from the fact that even after removal of the electricity meter from the premises of the complainant, the opposite party no.2 sent electricity bill dated 21.1.2010 charging Rs.325/- on account of electricity consumption showing the status of the meter as “O” means O.K. The opposite party no.2 again sent electricity bill dated 5.3.2010 against showing the consumption of 53 units and the status of the meter as “O” means O.K. That when the electric meter from the premises of the complainant has been removed, then how and from which meter the complainant used the electricity. That the impugned memo is against the Punjab State Electricity Board Sales Regulations. There is no difference in consumption of the complainant. That the opposite parties are harassing the complainant by not restoring the electricity to the premises of the complainant. The complainant is living in the house without electricity for the last about three months and by serving the aforesaid illegal order and has caused mental tension particularly when there is nothing wrong with the meter and metering equipment installed for the residence of the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled for Rs.30000/- as damages and harassment caused to the complainant on account of service of illegal memo apart from setting aside the impugned memo and the operation and implementation of impugned memo dated 23.11.2009 is also liable to be stayed. The opposite parties are also liable to be restrained from disconnecting the electric connection of the premises of the complainant. 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 premises of the complainant were checked on17.12.2009 by Er.G.S.Gill,Xen Enforcement,P.S.E.B.Patiala-2 alongwith other officials and both M.E seals of the meter were found tampered and reaffixed and the meter was thus mishandled in order to avoid correct recording. The checking report was duly prepared at the spot which was signed by the representative/daughter of the consumer, who remained present throughout the checking, in token of its correctness. The copy of the same was also given to her. It is denied that no checking was done. The meter was duly packed as per rules. The letter was sent u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as amended .However no objections were filed by the consumer. It is denied that memo No., 1864 dated 17.12.2009 or the action of the opposite parties in not restoring the electric connection is illegal, null and void, against the principles of natural justice and rules and regulations of the Board itself. The consumer did not file any objections of the memo issued to him as per rules. It was a clear case of theft of energy. No objections were filed by the consumer. The complainant is not entitled to any damages whatsoever. 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 premises of the complainant were checked on 17.12.2009 by the raiding party and on checking found that both M.E. seals were tampered with and reaffixed and the meter was mishandled. Now the question arises whether from mere fact that M.E. seals of meter were tampered with and reaffixed, a case of theft of energy is made out? The answer is certainly not. It was incumbent upon the raiding party to install a parallel meter and should have noted difference in the energy consumed in both meters. Having not done so from the mere fact that seals were tempered with it cannot be said that theft of energy had been committed. The meter was not got checked from M&T Laboratory that it was running slow or was not running properly. In the absence of such evidence it cannot be held that complainant had committed theft of energy. On this point we are supported by the authorities HSWEB (Now HVPN) and others Vs. Bhushan Lal 2007(1) CLT 114 , Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd(HVPN) Vs.Gautam Plastic 2008(1)CLT 522 & DHBVNL Vs. Lakhmi Chand Bansal 2009(1) CLT 489. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions 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. 8. 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 one month from the receipt of copy of this order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:26.8.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
