DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 307 of 14-07-2010

Decided on : 28-10-2010

Pirthi Pal Singh aged about 60 years S/o Jarnail Singh, R/o H. No. 20270, Gali No. 1, Jujhar Singh Nagar, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited , The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman.

2. SDO/AEE Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Cantt. Sub Division, Bathinda.

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.D. Nayyar, counsel for the

opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant is holder of domestic electric connection bearing A/c No. J536/133 . He received memo bearing No. 69 dated 28-04-2010 raising demand of Rs. 53,750/- from the opposite parties on the basis of checking report dated 22-04-2010 wherein it has been written that at the time of checking of meter, both ME seals were found tampered with and this is a case of theft. The complainant made request to the Deputy Chief Engineer on 18-05-2010 to withdraw the impugned memo, but the same was rejected vide memo No. 2157 of 18-05-2010 without going through the merit of the request. The complainant assails the impugned memo on the ground that checking dated 22-04-2010 was never made but the signatures of the complainant were obtained on blank paper without disclosing the contents; the complainant was not given any opportunity of hearing; he never committed any theft nor used the electricity un-authorisedly; he never tempered with the M.E. seals of the meter; meter was installed in the public street and removed meter was never checked in the M.E. Lab in the presence of the complainant nor any notice from M.E. Lab was ever received by the complainant; removed meter was neither packed in the cardboard box nor the signatures were obtained by the opposite parties and no evidence of theft was collected at the spot. Hence, this complaint for quashing the impugned memos and for issuing direction to the opposite parties to pay him compensation and cost.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and submitted that electric connection of the complainant had been checked by the official of the opposite parties on 22-04-2010 and on checking it had been found that both the M.E. seals of the meter had been found to have been tampered with, which amounted to the theft of the energy by unauthorised means. The checking report had been made at the spot by the officials of the opposite parties and the same had been signed by them. The representative of the connection holder who was present at the time of checking had also signed the checking report in token of its correctness and on account of his having received the copy of the checking report. Thereafter complainant had been issued a provisional order of assessment for unauthorised use of electricity, making a demand of Rs. 53,750/- whereby complainant was asked to deposit the demanded amount or could submit objections, if any within a period of seven days of the date of notice. The complainant did not make the payment of the amount demanded nor made the objections within stipulated period. The connection holder approached the designated authority against the provisional order of assessment and the designated authority dismissed the said objections since the same had not been filed within the stipulated period. It has been pleaded that at the time of checking, the meter of the connection holder was not installed in the street and rather the checking squad had made a report that the meter should be now installed outside the premises.

3. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings.

4. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The connection of the complainant was checked on 22-04-2010 vide checking report Ex. R-3. A perusal of checking report reveals that his connected load was found 8.293 KW as against sanctioned load of 8.32 K.W. A note has been given on the checking report in Punjabi , the English version of the same is as under :-

   “Seal Missing :

   Both the M.E. seals of the meter have been tampered with. It is a clear case of theft of energy. Meter has been installed inside the premises of the consumer. It should be installed outside/street in the standardized box of the Board.”

   There is nothing mentioned on the checking report that after removal of the meter, it was sent to M.E. Lab for detection that theft can be committed by tampering with the M.E. seals of the meter or not. Support can be sought from the observations of our own Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh, wherein the precedent laid down in the case titled Superintending Engineer Vs. Punjab Khapatkar Sangh (Regd.) 2005(2) CPC 407 is as under :-

   “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Electricity – Appeal filed against order of District Forum for quashing the demand of Rs. 79,597/- and restoring the electricity connection of complainant – Main reason for imposing this penalty was that there was a hole in the meter body which was taken as theft of energy - It is settled principle of law that charge of theft being a criminal offence it has to be proved by a convincing evidence which was not available in the present case – Petitioner had deposited the amount as claimed to avoid disconnection of electricity supply – Complainant is entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the deposited amount from date of order of District Forum till date of payment.”

In view of the following Commercial Circular No. 22/99 dated 25-05-99, the removed meter should be sent to M.E. Laboratory in the sealed card board box duly signed by the concerned PSPCL official and the consumer respectively :-

“Commercial Circular No. 22/99

Sub : Packing of defective meters in sealed card board boxes.

In continuation of Commercial Circular No. 8/99 dated 02-03-1999.

As per SMI-104, meters on removal are to be sent to M.E. Laboratory within a maximum period of 15 days. Difficulties have been reported in complying with these instructions because M.E. Laboratories have fixed only one day in a month for receiving such meters from one sub division. It has, therefore, now been decided that the removed meters against any Meter Change Order be sent to M.E. Laboratory in the sealed card board boxes duly signed by the concerned PSEB official/officials and the consumer or his representative within a period of 15 to 30 days SMI-104 may be considered as amended to the above extent.”

In the instant case above said procedure which is mandatory has not been followed for seeking a clear verdict of the M.E. laboratory regarding theft of energy. Therefore, in the absence of such a report, above said checking report cannot be accepted.

Contention of the opposite party that checking report bears the signature of the representative of the complainant which means that he has accepted the finding of the checking report that consumer was committing theft of energy, is not tenable because the representative of the complainant had signed the checking report simply accepting that electric connection was checked which does not mean that he had also accepted that he/complainant was committing theft of energy. A similar matter came under the consideration of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case titled Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula & Others Vs. Poonam Vashist 2009(2) Civil Court Cases 131 (P&H) wherein it was held that :

“Electricity – Theft – Electricity rules require that to prove the theft of electricity, it is the basic requirement that the meter must have been checked from the concerned laboratory.”

The law laid down in the above said authority fully covers the controversy in hand. The meter of the complainant was neither packed nor sealed nor got it checked from the M.E. Laboratory. In the absence of M.E. Lab report, it is difficult to ascertain that how the M.E. seals were tampered with by the complainant and what was the mode of theft of electricity and how that can be possible by tampering with the M.E. seals. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the impugned memo without any base.

In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with cost of Rs. 1,000/- and the memo No. 69 dated 28-04-2010 raising impugned demand of Rs. 53,750/- is hereby quashed. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced :

28-10-2010 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member