MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 16.5.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 73 of 2010 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant is the owner of H.No.1052, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh. He got an electricity connection installed in his house, in the  year 1962-63.  The load of the connection was enhanced in the year 2005 and the meter was changed from single phase to three phase.  It was stated that the complainant received a bill for the period 12.7.2008 to 12.9.2008 showing consumption of 12954 units and accordingly, a bill dated 3.10.2008 was issued for Rs.38,835/-.  On receipt of the bill, the complainant felt shocked and he challenged it by depositing the necessary fee of Rs.450/- on 6.10.2008 alongwith an application for correction.  It was further stated that a check meter was installed by OP No.3, to check the defect, and it was found that the old meter installed was running slow by 67.63%.  It was further stated that since, OP No.3, was not satisfied with the reading of check meter. Therefore, he installed another check meter on 31.10.2008, but this meter did not work as it showed ‘Dead Stop’ and was removed on 8.11.2008.  It was further stated that when 3^rd check meter was installed, the readings from that meter showed that the old meter was running 7.3% slow.  It was further stated that from the perusal of the reading of the abovesaid three check meters showed that none of the check meters was perfect and giving any satisfactory results. Hence, it was crystal clear that there was technical defect in the old meter.  On 20.11.2008, OP No.3 alongwith the Junior Engineer and two other officials, raided the premises of the complainant, and checked the disputed meter. They found that both the seals were found intact and the meter was found in working order. The complainant moved applications dated 27.10.2008 and 9.12.2008 requesting OP No.3 to send the meter to the laboratory for its verification but OP No.3 did not send the same for laboratory test.  On 16.12.2008 OP No.3 removed the old meter, and sent it for verification.  A new meter was installed in its place.  It was further stated that on the meter change order dated 4.12.2008, nothing was mentioned about the reading of the old meter.  It was further stated that after obtaining a copy of the meter change order dated 4.12.2008 under the RTI Act on 9.7.2009, the complainant came to know that the following addition was made later on by OP No.3 on the space left blank :- “Meter was checked thoroughly after removal from site and found its number plate is free and the reading could not be pinpointed.”  Thereafter, the complainant made a number of oral as well as written requests to OP No.3 for settlement of the wrong impugned bill, issued him.  The complainant asked the OPs to refer the matter to the Disputes Settlement Committee and, as such, they sent the electricity meter to M & P Lab for testing and asked him to be present in the Laboratory at the time of testing the meter.  The report of the Laboratory is Annexure C-12.  As per the report, it was found that the meter was tampered with by breaking open the right side resulting in accessibility to two number points.  Hence, OP No.3 vide his letter dated 9.6.2009 imposed penalty of Rs.7156/-, which was added in the next bill, on account of alleged tampering with the disputed meter.  It was further stated that the meter was not tampered with. The complainant made a representation to OP No.1 for redressal of his grievance. OP No.1 directed him to deposit 50% of the disputed bill i.e. Rs.19,418/-.  He complied with the same and deposited Rs.19,418/-.  It was further stated that OP No.1 referred the matter to the Disputes Redressal Committee and the Committee, after its meeting held on 30.9.2009, was of the view that the meter had been tampered with to obstruct the registering of actual consumption of electricity and the damage to the meter was intentional and not accidental. Hence, the appeal of the complainant was dismissed. It was further stated that the order of the Disputes Redressal Committee was illegal, wrong, arbitrary and untenable in the eyes of law. It was further stated that not only this, the complainant received a notice dated 18.1.2010 on 25.1.2010 for depositing Rs.1783/- as average bill for the period 12.11.2008 to 16.12.2008 for the period, when the meter was defective. The complainant made a prayer for withdrawal of the impugned bill and penalty but to no avail.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.                     Reply was filed by the OPs, wherein, they admitted the installation of parallel meters at the premises of the complainant, as mentioned in the complaint. It was stated that the meter was sent to the M & P Lab for testing and, as per the report of M & P Lab, the meter was found tampered with by breaking of its right side and the complainant refused to sign the laboratory report.  It was further stated that out of the total disputed amount of Rs.38,835/-, he had paid only Rs.19,418/-and the remaining amount of Rs.19.417/- with the passage of time became Rs.32,176/-, on account of levy of surcharge, due to non-payment of the defaulted amount.  It was further stated that on the request of the complainant, the matter was also referred to the Disputes Redressal Committee.  After going through the record, the Members of the Disputes Redressal Committee, found that the meter had been tampered with, to obstruct the reading of actual consumption of electricity and the operative part of the decision is as under:-

“…This has been very clearly defined in the above said judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court that provision of 26 of Electricity Act, 1910, is not applicable if meter is tempered with and the supply line is manipulating and body seal of meter is broken.  However, the provision is applicable when the meter is faulty due to some defect and not registering the actual consumption of electricity.  In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and meter being tempered and appeal of the applicable is hereby dismissed.  Copy of the decision be sent to the parties free of cost.”

All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on their part.

4.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.         The learned District Forum, dismissed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.  

6.         Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant, filed the instant appeal.

7.         We have heard Sh.Kapil Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant, Sh.Jatinder Singh, G.P on behalf of the respondents, and have perused the record, carefully.

8.         The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that the learned District Forum failed to consider that the check meters, which were installed parallel to the already installed meter in the premises of the complainant, were defective, as the same gave different readings.  It was further contended that the officials of the OP raided the premises of the complainant and checked the disputed meter and found that both the seals were intact, and the meter was found in working order. In the said report, there was not mentioned about the tampering of the meter by breaking open the right side of the terminal block. He further submitted that the District Forum wrongly relied upon the report of the Disputes Settlement Committee to the effect that meter was tampered with by the complainant. It was further contended that on the meter change order dated 4.12.2008, nothing was mentioned about the reading of the old meter and the blank spaces were marked with line and nothing was written on these blanks.  It was further contended that after obtaining a copy of the meter change order dated 4.12.2008 under the RTI Act on 9.7.2009, the complainant came to know that some addition was made later on by OP No.3. It was further submitted that the officials of OP No.3 got signatures of the complainant while changing the electricity meter but the said meter, which was removed was neither packed nor sealed nor the signatures of the officials of the OPs and the consumer were obtained and the meter was not sent to M & P Lab within 7 days in terms of Regulation 67. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to consider that OP No.2 vide its letter dated 31.3.2009 asked OP No.3 to send the electricity meter to M & P Lab for testing the same, after 3 ½ months from its removal from the site. OP No.3 asked the complainant to be present in the M & P Lab on 15.4.2009 but on that date no laboratory test was conducted of the disputed meter. It was further submitted that OP No.3 concocted a report on the basis of physical inspection dated 15.4.2009 and asked the complainant to sign the same but he refused to do so. However, OP No.3 imposed penalty of Rs.7156/- on account of alleged tampering with the disputed electricity meter. It was further contended that breaking open of the right side of the terminal block as alleged in the report by OP No.3, for the first time, after a period of 6 months approximately, as earlier, it was never pointed out by OP No.3  and the official of the Electricity Department, who visited at the time of inspection. It was further contended that the meter was neither packed nor sealed, which is mandatory, as per law nor the signatures of the officials of OP No.3 and the consumer were obtained after removing the meter. It was also not sent to M & P Lab within 7 days, as per Regulation 67 of the Electricity Supply Regulations. Therefore, the alleged report of tampering with the meter by the complainant, after a period of 4 months from the date of removal of the disputed meter, was untenable in the eyes of law. It was further stated that the said report dated 15.4.2009 was cooked up.

9.         The G.P. for the respondents/OPs contended that the meter of the complainant was sent to the M & P Lab for testing and as per the report of M & P Lab, the meter was found tampered with by breaking of its right side. He further submitted that the complainant was asked to make payment of Rs.32,176/- alongwith penalty of Rs.7156/- but he was not satisfied with the action of the Ops. He made a representation for referring the matter to the Disputes Settlement Committee After going through the record, the Members of the Disputes Redressal Committee also arrived at the conclusion that the meter had been tampered with, and the complainant was liable to make the payment of the bill amount alongwith penalty.

10.               The complainant assailed the order of the learned District Forum and prayed for quashing of the bill dated 3.10.2008 for Rs.38,835/- for the period from12.7.2008 to 12.9.2008 (Annexure C-1) and also for the penalty notice dated 9.6.2009 vide which, penalty of Rs.7,156/- was imposed on account of theft of energy by tampering with the meter (Annexure-C-13).  There is no dispute about the factum that when an exorbitant bill was received by the complainant, he asked for the correction of the same. Three check meters were installed parallel to the old meter installed in the premises of the complainant.  Those were found to be defective. Ultimately, the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was removed for sending it to the M & P Laboratory.  At that time the signature of the complainant on the meter change order were not obtained. The meter was neither packed in a box nor sealed. Not only this, the meter was sent to the Laboratory after 3½  months of the removal of the same.  No evidence was produced by the OPs that the meter remained intact during that period. The possibility of tampering with the meter during the period of 3½ months, before it was sent to the Laboratory, when it was in the possession of the OPs, could not be ruled out.  Since, the proper procedure as per the Electricity Regulations was not adopted by the OPs for sending the removed meter to the Laboratory, the report Annexure C-12 of the Laboratory, based merely on the basis of physical examination that the meter was found tampered with, by breaking open the right side of the terminal block, could not be said to be authentic. As such the demand raised on the basis of such report as also the penalty imposed could be said to be illegal. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint.  The order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.  

11.                   In view of the above, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, we quash the penalty order dated 9.6.2009 for an amount of Rs.7,156/- (Annexure C-13). The OPs are also directed to withdraw the bill dated 3.10.2008 (Annexure C-1) and overhaul the account of the complainant for the period from 12.7.2008 to 12.9.2008, on the basis of average consumption, for the period of two months of the corresponding period of previous two years and adjust the excess amount already deposited by him in the future bills.

12.                   The Parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.    

13.                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost.