DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.98 of 25-02-2011 Decided on 06-06-2011
Gurmeet Singh, aged about 38 years, son of Sh.Joginder Singh, Resident of village Balianwali, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its CMD. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Rampura Phul, Distt. Bathinda through its SDO/XEN.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Gurpreet Singh, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.J.D.Nayyar, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding SP electricity connection bearing A/c No. BP19/017 having sanctioned load of 15.60 kw for running the Atta Chakki to earn his livelihood and the average consumption of the complainant remained Rs.6,000/- bi monthly. The opposite parties issued a memo No.651 dated 09.02.2011 raising a demand of Rs.1,74,770/- from the complainant on account of theft of electricity and Rs.1,50,000/- as compounding charges in which, it is written that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was checked in the ME Lab on 04.02.2011 and it was found that the complainant was committing theft of electricity by making the R-Phase of the meter by-pass. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that the meter in question was never removed by the officials of the opposite parties in the premises of the complainant rather the officials of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant on 16.12.2010 and they removed the meter in the absence of the complainant. The officials of the opposite parties neither packed the removed meter in the cardboard box nor obtained the signatures of the complainant or gave the checking report dated 16.12.2010 to the complainant. The said meter was never checked by any authorized/ competent person in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative; the seals of the meter in question were duly intact and it is impossible to by-pass the phase of the meter; the officials of the opposite parties have been visiting the premises of the complainant every month for recording the meter reading but no adverse remark had been ever reported rather the meter status as 'O' has been recorded in all the bills, issued by the opposite parties; the opposite parties neither supplied any copy of the alleged checking report nor they provided any opportunity of being heard to the complainant; after removing the old meter, the opposite parties installed another new meter on 16.12.2010 itself but when the old meter was removed and after installing the new meter, there has been no extraordinary enhance in the consumption of units by the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint with prayer to seek directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the memo No.651 dated 09.02.2011 alongwith cost and compensation. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the electricity connection of the complainant had been checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 16.12.2010 and on checking, it had been found on putting heater load on the meter, the behavior of the meter on the first phase was different and thus found the meter to be suspicious and made a report regarding the same asking to get the meter checked in the ME Lab. The meter was removed by them and packed in the cardboard box, sealed and after completing the necessary formalities, was handed over to JE Ranjit Singh for being sent to the ME Lab. The complainant who was present at the spot, had signed the checking report without any protest. Thereafter, the meter was opened in the ME Lab in the presence of Pardeep Kumar, thekedaar being representative of the complainant on 04.02.2011. In the report of ME Lab, it has been written that the meter was checked after taking the same out of the cardboard box, it was found that the connection holder had been involved in theft of energy which was evident from the fact that he had put insulation on out going copper wire of R-Phase, on which two studs after being taken out of the insulation had been put on the incoming and out going of the R-Phase of the meter had been sort circuited. It was also found that between the out going R-Phase and the meter terminal due to insulation and short circuiting of the incoming had by passed the red phase of the meter. Thus, the electricity supply was being controlled by way of unauthorized means and it is a case of theft of electricity. The said checking report had been signed by the said Pardeep Kumar, representative of the complainant and responsible officers including Sr. XEN, ME Lab, Sr. XEN Enforcement, Bathinda and other staff. The electricity connection was disconnected on 10.02.2011 as per rules. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 135 of Electricity Act and CC No.53/2006 and Regulation No.37 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 of the opposite parties, the complainant had been issued a provisional order of assessment No.651 dated 09.02.2011 for Rs.1,74,770/- which had been calculated as per rules (i.e. LxDxHxF % = Units x Tariff x 2 x 12 months) as the recoverable amount and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.1,50,000/-as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. The complainant had been further asked that in case, he did not agree with this provisional order, he could file objections if any, within 15 days from the date of notice. The opposite parties had written a letter bearing memo No.246 dated 15.02.2011 to the police authorities regarding the said theft and for lodging the FIR as per rules. The complainant did not file any objections within the stipulated time, as such, the demand made vide provisional assessment has become final and accordingly, the complainant had been issued a final order of assessment vide memo No.1024 dated 21.02.2011. The complainant refused to accept the notice and as such, the copy of the notice was pasted on the door of the complainant. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The complainant received a memo No.651 dated 09.02.2011 for a demand of Rs.1,74,770/- issued by the opposite parties on account of theft of electricity and Rs.1,50,000/- as compounding charges, on account of ME Lab report dated 04.02.2011, it has been mentioned in the ME Lab report that the complainant was committing theft of electricity by making the R-Phase of the meter bye-pass. This memo has been challenged on different grounds by the complainant. He alleged that on 16.12.2010, the officials of the opposite parties removed the meter in the absence of the complainant. This meter was neither packed in the cardboard box nor the signatures of the complainant were obtained and no checking report dated 16.12.2010 was handed over to the complainant. The said removed meter was never checked by any authorized person in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative. The status of the meter is 'O' which is very clear from the bills, issued by the opposite parties. After removing the old meter, the opposite parties installed a new meter on 16.12.2010. However, the old meter was removed, there was no extraordinary enhancement of the consumption of units by the complainant. 6. On checking dated 16.12.2010, it has been found that the heater load has been put on the meter; the behavior of the meter on the first phase was different and found the meter to be suspicious and report regarding this, was prepared, asking the meter to be checked in the ME Lab. The meter was removed by the officials of the opposite parties, it was duly packed and sealed in the cardboard box and after completing the necessary formalities, the meter was handed over to JE Ranjit Singh for being sent to the ME Lab. The complainant who was present at the spot, had signed the checking report without any protest. The meter was checked in the ME Lab in the presence of Pardeep Kumar, thekedaar being representative of the complainant on 04.02.2011. It has been specifically mentioned in the report of ME Lab that the meter was checked after taking out the same from the cardboard box and the connection holder was committing theft of electricity by putting insulation on out going copper wire of R-Phase, on which two studs after being taken out of the insulation had been put on the incoming and out going of the R-Phase of the meter had been short circuited. It has been also found that between the out going R-Phase and the meter terminal due to insulation and short circuiting of the incoming had by passed the red phase of the meter. The electricity supply was being controlled by way of unauthorized means and this is a case of theft of energy. Pardeep Kumar, representative of the complainant refused to sign the checking report and remarks regarding the same were made on the report itself. The checking report had been signed by the responsible officers including Sr. XEN, ME Lab, Sr. XEN Enforcement, Bathinda and other staff. The electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected on 10.02.2011 as per rules and accordingly, a provisional order of assessment No.651 dated 09.02.2011 for Rs.1,74,770/- was issued to the complainant according to rules (LxDxHxF % = Units x Tariff x 2 x 12 months) as the recoverable amount and had also been informed vide this memo and an FIR has been recorded against him on the basis of the said theft u/s 135 of the Electricity Act and in case, if he wanted, he could deposit another amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. In case, he did not agree with this provisional order, he could file the objections within 15 days from the date of notice. The opposite parties had written a letter bearing memo No.246 dated 15.02.2011 to the Police authorities regarding the said theft and for lodging the FIR as per rules. The complainant failed to file any objections within stipulated time, as such the provisional order of assessment has become final and accordingly, the complainant had been issued a final order of assessment vide memo No.1024 dated 21.02.2011. The complainant has refused to accept the notice and as such, the copy of the notice was pasted on the door of the complainant and the report regarding the same was prepared. The opposite parties have taken the support of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (DB) in case titled Kamal Kumar Vs. PSEB, RCR 2009 (2) 815. 7. The opposite parties have specifically pleaded in para No.1 in their written statement on merit that the complainant is running the electricity connection for commercial purposes. The objection taken by the opposite parties is that the complainant is running the electricity connection for commercial purposes, is not proved by the opposite parties as the complainant has specifically pleaded that he has been using the said connection for earning his livelihood. Further, the opposite parties have not mentioned that how many workers are working over there. No cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on file by the opposite parties to prove their version that he has been running the said Atta Chakki for commercial purposes. 8. The checking report dated 16.12.2010 Ex.R-4 shows that the meter has been packed and handed over to Er. Baljit Singh who was present at the spot in the ME Lab. This checking report has been signed by Gurmeet Singh, the connection holder. The ME Lab report Ex.R-6 has not been signed by the complainant. The opposite parties have failed to prove that who was Pardeep Singh and how he was related to the connection holder, Gurmeet Singh. Mere mention of thekedaar of Atta Chakki is not sufficient. The opposite parties have specifically pleaded in their written statement that the complainant has failed to file objections, so provisional order of assessment was made final which was not received by the complainant and the order of final assessment which was pasted on the door of the complainant but no such evidence has been placed on file to show that this notice was ever pasted on the door of the complainant. Moreover, no photographs have been placed on file to prove the version of the opposite parties. Further, the opposite parties have specifically pleaded that they have written a letter to the Police Authorities bearing memo No.246 dated 15.02.2011 regarding the said theft and lodged the FIR as per rules. Neither the letter dated 15.02.2011 is placed on file nor the copy of FIR is placed on file by the opposite parties to prove their version. Moreover, the opposite parties have submitted that in the ME Lab, it has been found that the connection holder had been involved in theft of energy, which was evident from the fact that he had put insulation on the incoming and out going of R-Phase of the meter had short circuited. The meter terminal due to insulation and short circuiting of incoming, had by-passed the red phase of the meter, The ME Lab report has not been signed by the complainant or any of his representative. Mere endorsement of the words that the complainant has refused to sign the checking report in the ME Lab does not prove that he was present in the ME Lab on 04.02.2011. No copy of notice has been placed on file by the opposite parties which was send to the complainant to be present in the ME Lab, which is the violation of their own rules and regulations. 9. With utmost regard and humility, the authorities relied upon by the opposite parties are distinguishable on facts and circumstances. 10. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation and the memo No.651 dated 09.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,74,770/- is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.87,000/- to the complainant if deposited by him vide order dated 28.02.2011 by this Forum. Compliance of this order be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced 06.06.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
