DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/191 of 15.3.2010 Decided on: 6.9.2010 Iqbal Singh aged 39 years, son of Sh.Kuldip Singh, resident of VPO Jhill, Tehsil & District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala. 2. S.D.O. North Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, 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: Sarv Sh.B.M.Singh & K.S.Sidhu Advocates For opposite parties: Sh.P.S.Walia, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Iqbal 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 consumer of Punjab State Electricity Board, having electricity connection bearing account No.SR-04/870, which is installed at the residential premises of the complainant at village VPO Jhill, Tehsil and District Patiala. That the complainant was surprised when he received a demand notice bearing No.368 dated 9.3.2010 from opposite party no.2 alleging therein that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked on 24.2.2010 by S. Hardev Singh, AEE, Reethkheri, Sub Division and as per his report ME seals were found tampered and on account of this the complainant has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.38648/- on account of theft of energy plus Rs.18000/- as compounding amount totaling Rs.56648/- within a period of 7 days and threatened that in case the same is not paid within the stipulated period, they will disconnect the electricity of the complainant. The complainant made representation against the above demand notice dated 10.3.2010 but the opposite parties have refused to consider the same. That the demand of Rs.38648/- on account of theft of energy plus Rs.18000/- as compounding amount totaling Rs.56648/- raised by the opposite parties in the demand notice No.368 dated 9.3.2010 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 of Rs.38648/- on account of theft of energy plus Rs.18000/- as compounding amount totaling Rs.56648/- 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 denied that any representation was made by the complainant. The demand can not be withdrawn. The facts are that the premises of the complainant were checked on 24.2.21010 by Er.Hardev Singh A.A.E. Reethkheri Sub Division P.S.E.B. District Patiala and M.E.seals of the meter were found tampered. The checking report was duly prepared at the spot which was signed by the representative/wife of the consumer, who remained present throughout the checking, in token of its correctness. The copy of the report was given to Kiarandeep Kaur at the spot. It is denied that the demand raised is illegal, ultra virus, malafide, without jurisdiction and is liable to be ignored and quashed. There is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to 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 premises of the complainant were checked on 24.2.2010 by the raiding party and on checking found that ME seals of the meter were tampered with. Now the question arises whether from mere fact that ME seals of the meter were tampered with, 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. We are also of the clear view that the opposite parties have unnecessarily drawn the complainant into prolonged litigation. 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 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:6.9.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
