DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.409 of 09-09-2010 Decided on 31-01-2011
Gurdass Singh, aged about 28 years son of Ajaib Singh, resident of village Jeeda, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its M.D./C.M.D./Chairman. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited., Sub Division, Goniana. ......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.J.D.Nayyar, counsel for the 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 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding SP connection No.28/1243 for running Atta Chakki and has been paying the bills regularly. In first week of July, 2010, the meter of the complainant was burnt and he filed an application with the opposite party No.2 who deputed Gurdeep Singh, AJE, he visited the site and made a report that the meter seals are intact/correct. The opposite parties got deposited Rs.950/- from the complainant being cost of the meter vide receipt No.237 on 08.07.2010 and changed the meter. Thereafter, the complainant got a memo No.4958 dated 09.08.2010, received on 17.08.2010 for a sum of Rs.2,16,085/- u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the basis that the removed meter was got checked in ME Lab and found that both the seals of the meter were tampered and meter was also opened and it was observed that after opening the meter i.e. CT circuit (3 phase) the consumption was being controlled and it was a case of theft of electricity. The complainant filed objections before the XEN Distribution Power Com, Bathinda against the said memo and has challenged the said memo on various grounds that he neither committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly; the condition of the meter never shown to the complainant neither at the time of installation of the meter nor at the time of removal of the meter; it was neither packed and sealed in the cardboard box in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained by the opposite parties. The previous consumption of the burnt meter and new consumption of the new meter are same. The alleged checking dated 26.07.2010 in ME Lab was neither done in the presence of the complainant nor a copy of checking report was sent to him. The name of the checking officer has not been mentioned in the alleged memo. The complainant further alleged that he applied for transfer of the connection No.SP47/1243 in his name and paid Rs.5,500/- vide receipt No.223 dated 07.07.2010 but the connection has still not been transferred in the name of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that previously, the connection was running in the name of Raghubir Singh son of Malkit Singh and Raghubir Singh filed an application for transfer of connection in the name of Gurdas Singh son of Ajaib Singh. After completing the formalities, the complainant deposited Rs.5,500/- on 07.07.2010 for transfer of connection in his name and he has also filed an affidavit and Form A&A as per rules of the opposite parties for his connection and accordingly, he was responsible for the payment of the outstanding amount against the said connection. On 12.07.2010, the meter was changed in his name. Raghubir Singh had filed an application dated 08.07.2010 regarding the burnt meter. The officials of the opposite parties installed the new meter and removed the old meter of the complainant in presence of one Harjit Singh representative of the connection holder on 20.07.2010 vide MCO No.99/71321 dated 08.07.2010. The removed meter was packed in the cardboard box in the presence of the representative of the connection holder as per rules and sent it to ME Lab for checking and advised him to present in the ME Lab for checking the meter. It was checked in the ME Lab on 26.07.2010 vide challan No.212 in the presence of Harjit Singh and during checking, it was found that the meter was opened by tampering both the ME seals and the consumption was being controlled by putting the resistance on CT Circuit phase-III. This act of the connection holder amounted to unauthorized use of electricity and theft of energy. Harjit Singh, who was present during the checking in the ME Lab, had signed the checking report in token of acceptance. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, and CC No.53/2006 and Regulation No.37 of Electricity Supply code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 of the opposite parties, Raghubir Singh had been issued a provisional order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity for a sum of Rs.2,16,085/- but the objections had been filed against the said notice by the complainant as the connection had been transferred in his name. This also proves that the complainant and Raghubir Singh are hand in glove with each other. The objections against the provisional order of assessment had been dismissed being barred by limitation under Rule 37.2 (C) (i) of the Electricity Supply code and Related Matter Regulation 2007 by the opposite parties on 26.08.2010. The complainant was informed accordingly but the the complainant had not made the payment. 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 learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is holding SP connection No.28/1243 for running Atta Chakki. The meter of the complainant was burnt in the first week of July, 2010 and an application in this regard was filed with the opposite party No.2 who deputed Gurdeep Singh, AJE to visit the site and to make the report regarding the burnt meter. The opposite parties got deposited Rs.950/- as cost of the meter vide receipt No.237 on 08.07.2010. The complainant got memo No.4958 dated 09.08.2010 for a demand of Rs.2,16,085/- which was received by him on 17.08.2010 u/s 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 on the ground that the meter was removed and got checked in the ME Lab and as per report of ME Lab, both the seals of the meter were found tampered. The meter was opened and it was observed after opening the meter that CT circuit (3 phase), the consumption was being controlled. The complainant has filed objections before XEN Distribution. The complainant has challenged the memo on various grounds that he has neither committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly; the meter was neither packed or sealed in the cardboard box nor his signatures were obtained; the meter was burnt accidentally; the previous consumption of the burnt meter and new consumption of the new meter are same and all the bills in this regard with the opposite parties. The meter was not checked in ME Lab in the presence of the complainant and the ME Lab report dated 26.07.2010 was not prepared in the presence of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the opposite parties have not followed the mandatory provisions of 36(a),(b),(c) & (d). 6. Admittedly, the connection was running in the name of Raghbir Singh son of Malkeet Singh. Raghbir Singh filed an application for transfer of connection in the name of Gurdass Singh son of Ajaib singh. After completing the formalities, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.5,500/- on 07.07.2010 for transfer of connection in his name. As per clause of the A&A Form and indemnity bond, the complainant was responsible for payment of outstanding amount against the said connection. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that Raghbir Singh filed an application on 08.07.2010 regarding burning of the meter and after receiving the application, the officials of the opposite parties installed a new meter after removing the old meter from the premises of the complainant in the presence of Harjit Singh representative of the connection holder on 20.07.2010 vide MCO No.99/71321 dated 08.07.2010. The removed meter was packed in the cardboard box in the presence of the representative of the connection holder which was sent to ME Lab for checking. The representative of the connection holder was advised to be present in the ME Lab for checking of the meter. The meter was checked in the ME Lab on 26.07.2010 vide challan No.212 in the presence of said Harjit Singh representative of the complainant and during checking, it was found that the meter was opened by tampering the ME seals and the consumption was being controlled by putting on CT circuit in phase-III. This act of the connection holder amounted to unauthorized use of electricity and theft of energy. Harjit Singh, representative of the connection holder who was present during the checking in the ME Lab had put his signatures on the ME Lab report. The ME Lab report had been made at the spot by the officials of opposite parties, which is duly signed by them. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act and CC No.53/2006 and Regulation No.37 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 of the opposite parties, Raghubir Singh previous connection holder had been issued a provisional order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity making a demand of Rs.2,16,085/-. The demand had been raised from Raghubir Singh but the objections to the provisional order of assessment had been filed by the complainant as the connection had been transferred in his name. The complainant and Raghubir Singh are hand in glove with each other. The objections against the provisional order of assessment had been dismissed being time barred under rule 37.2 (C)(i) of the Electricity Supply code & Related Matters Regulation 2007 by the competent authority of the opposite parties on 26.08.2010. 7. The connection was transferred in the name of Gurdass Singh on 12.07.2010. Raghubir Sngh had filed an application dated 08.07.2010 regarding the burning of the meter and had deposited Rs.950/- as meter change fee. The complainant filed an application. After receiving the application, the officials of the opposite parties installed a new meter after removing the old meter from the premises of the complainant in the presence of one Harjit Singh, representative of the connection holder on 20.07.2010 vide MCO No.99/71321 dated 08.07.2010. The said representative was advised to be present in the ME Lab for the checking of the meter. The meter was checked in ME Lab on 26.07.2010 vide challan No.212 in the presence of Harjit Singh, the representative of the complainant. During the checking, it was found that the meter was opened by tampering both the ME seals and the consumption was being controlled by putting the resistance in CT circuit Phase-III. This checking report dated 26.07.2010 Ex.R-10 is duly signed by four officers and the representative of the complainant. The ME Lab report is supported by the affidavits of the officials/officers who have checked the meter in the ME Lab vide Ex.R-2, Ex.R-3, Ex.R-4 and Ex.R-5. The complainant as well as opposite parties have placed on file letter Ex.R-9 and Ex.C-19 where the ALM has given report that Block of the meter is burnt but ME seals and glass is intact. ALM is not a competent person to give such report. Moreover, the officials who have checked the meter in ME Lab has no ill-will with the complainant. Hence, there is no reason to deny this report. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case titled Budh Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, decided on 02.03.2010, wherein, the Hon'ble State Commission has held that:- “Not only that the respondents have also filed affidavit of S.S.Kaler, Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement), who has deposed that he had himself made the checking on 06.07.2004 in which the appellant was found running 7.5 BHP motor as against sanctioned load of 5 BHP motor. The respondents have also filed affidavit of Sh.Manjit Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer. The version of the respondents is therefore strengthened not only by the documents but also by the affidavits of the concerned officers. We find no illegality in the impugned order dated 29.09.2004 – Appeal is dismissed.” The present complaint is supported by affidavits of the concerned officers who have checked the meter in ME Lab. 8. Therefore, what has been discussed above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 31-01-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member |
