DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/99 of 16.2.2010 Decided on: 26.8.2010 Raj Dulari widow of Late Sh.Ram Rachpal resident of H.No.399,St.No.11, Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board , through its Secretary. 2. Punjab State Electricity Board ,Fort Sub Division, through Assistant Executive Engineer. ----------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.Ravinder Singh, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.P.S.Walia, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Raj Dulari 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 electric connection bearing account No.RP-39-367 in the name of the complainant is installed in the residential premises of the complainant and she is regularly paying the consumption charges of the electricity consumed by her and as such she is the consumer of the opposite parties. That the opposite parties to the utter surprise of the complainant has sent a memo No.184 dated 5.2.2010 alleging therein that she has indulged in theft of electricity and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.18215/- and further threatened the complainant that she should deposit another amount of Rs.12000/- to the opposite parties, failing which criminal action shall be taken against her. That the impugned memo No.184 dated 5.2.2010 is illegal, null and void, unconstitutional and against the rules and regulations governing to the parties. That the above said illegal act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. That the complainant has suffered mental tension and agony at the hands of opposite parties and as such the complainant is entitled to Rs.50000/- for that act. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled for Rs.10000/-as litigation charges. 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 meter of the complainant was removed vide M.C.O. No.78844/098 dated 14.10.2009 which was replaced as per report dated 13.11.2009.The meter was thereafter sent to M.E.Lab as per rules of the Board and it was detected during checking that all M.E.seals were tampered. That the meter was removed being defective and it was stopped at the time of removal. The complainant was thus found liable to pay the amount in dispute as per rules of the Board. There is neither any illegal act nor any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any amount whatsoever. 4. 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 the complainant was removed vide meter change order,Ex.R4 dated 14.10.2009 affected on 13.11.2009.The meter was sent to M.E.Lab as per rules and all M.E.seals were found tampered. The meter was defective and stopped at the time of its removal. Sh.Harpal Singh, J.E. took the meter in M.E.Lab and the same was not accepted. There is neither any deficiency in service or illegality on the part of the opposite parties. The perusal of the meter change order,Ex.R4 dated 14.10.2009 would show that it was affected on 13.11.2009.It is also the case of the opposite parties that the meter was not accepted due to the tampering of all M.E.seals and thus was refused to be taken by the M.E.Lab Incharge .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. Sh.Harpal Singh,J.E. has deposed in his affidavit,mEx.R2 that he took the meter in dispute to M.E.Lab on 15.12.2009 vide challan No.540 for depositing the same. He has also deposed that the meter was not accepted due to tampering of all M.E.seals and thus was refused to be taken by the M.E.Lab Incharge, meaning thereby the meter was never checked in the M.E.Lab. 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 no order as to costs. 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 | | 
