DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.532 of 22-11-2010 Decided on 18-05-2011
Jagdev Singh son of Harchand Singh, aged about 55 years, resident of Ward No.9, Near Bus Stand, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & District Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through Chief Engineer, Opposite GNDTP, Bathinda. AEE/SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Goniana Mandi. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Division Bathinda.
......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. Sandeep Baghla, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. J.P.S.Brar, 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 electricity connection bearing A/c No.B-93/GN170354H under DS Category in his premises. The complainant had received a memo No.2174 dated 12.11.2010 for a demand of Rs.1,85,022/- on the basis of checking dated 11.11.2010. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that the said checking has not conducted in the presence of the complainant or his authorized representative; in the said checking, the reading of 52696 units have been recorded which is unbelievable as in the last bill prior to the alleged checking issued to the complainant, the reading was recorded as 18350 units on 25.09.2010 and the complainant had showed the bill in the office of the opposite party No.2 but the opposite parties have neither returned the bill nor have corrected the amount. Since, the checking dated 11.11.2010 and the reading has been recorded on 25.09.2010, it is beyond the scope of belief that the consumption could be recorded to 34346 units within a span of one month and few days with connected load of 4.36 KW; the meter has been installed in the box outside his premises alongwith other meters of adjoining premises of the area which is under control of the opposite parties; the meter of the complainant had been removed by the opposite parties in his absence whereas the same was reported to be OK even in the last bill; the said meter had never been got checked from the ME Lab or other competent authority and the opposite parties have violated the mandatory statutory provisions; no period of alleged demand has been mentioned in the said memo and no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the complainant before raising the said demand. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that on 11.11.2010, the checking was conducted by the officials of the opposite parties in his premises in the presence of the complainant/his representative and during checking, it was observed that the meter is showing reading on 11.11.2010 as 52596 units whereas in bill dated 9/2010, the meter reading was noted down as 18350 units and found that there is a huge difference between both the reading, he found the complainant indulging in unauthorized abstraction of electricity resulting in theft of power. The complainant in connivance with Meter Reader, has kept the actual consumption reading unrecorded. He was using excess load than the sanctioned load. Accordingly, the Checking Staff prepared a checking report dated 11.11.2010 at the spot in the presence of the complainant/his representative and the meter was removed and packed in the Cardboard box and paper seal No.71/79 dated 11.11.2010 was also affixed in the presence of the complainant/his representative and the removed meter was handed over to J.E. Kewal Krishan. The complainant/his representative put his signatures on the checking report as well as on the paper seal being satisfied with the checking and the copy of the checking report was also supplied to the same person. On the basis of this checking, memo No.2174 dated 12.11.2010 for raising a demand of Rs.1,85,022/- was issued to 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 has submitted that he is holding domestic electric connection No.B-93/GN170354H under DS Category which is installed outside the premises of the complainant in a box. The complainant received a impugned memo No.2174 dated 12.11.2010 vide which the demand of Rs.1,85,022/- has been raised from the complainant on the basis of alleged checking dated 11.11.2010. The complainant had challenged the impugned demand of Rs.1,85,022/-, raised by the opposite parties on various grounds that no alleged checking dated 11.11.2010 has ever been conducted in the presence of the complainant/his representative and the said checking is unilateral conducted at the back of the complainant and violative of the statutory provisions of the opposite parties; in the said checking, the reading of 52696 units has been recorded whereas in the previous bill prior to the alleged checking issued to the complainant, the reading was recorded as 18350 units on 25.09.2010 and the complainant had shown the bill in the office of the opposite party No.2 and they have kept the bill to correct the amount but the opposite parties have neither returned the bill nor have corrected the same. Since, the checking dated 11.11.2010 and the reading has been recorded on 25.09.2010, it is beyond the scope of belief that the consumption could be recorded to 34346 units more within a span of one month and few days with connected load of 4.36 KW; the meter has been installed in the box outside the premises of the complainant alongwith other meters of adjoining premises of the area. The meter installed in the premises of the complainant was removed by the opposite parties in the absence of the complainant whereas the same was in OK condition. The meter of the complainant has never been got checked from the ME Lab or any competent authority i.e. Chief Electrical Inspector. So, the opposite parties having violated the mandatory statutory provisions; no period of alleged demand has been specified in the impugned memo and the entire demand is highly exaggerated and exorbitant; no opportunity of being heard was provided to the complainant; no show cause notice has ever been given to the complainant before raising the impugned demand which is violation of the statutory provisions and principle of natural justice. 6. The opposite parties on the other hand submitted that the complainant was indulging in unauthorized abstraction of electricity as well as causing theft of power as the complainant in connivance with Meter Reader has been kept concealing the actual consumption reading with the aim to extraneous consideration to hide the same by tampering the meter. Departmental action is being taken against the concerned Meter Reader. Moreover, the complainant was found using excess load than the sanctioned one. The opposite parties have further submitted that memo No.2174 dated 12.11.2010 whereby a demand of Rs.1,85,022/- was raised on the basis of checking dated 11.11.2010, issued to the complainant. The checking was conducted on 11.11.2010 in the premises of the complainant in the presence of the complainant/his representative and during checking, it was observed that the meter is showing the reading on 11.11.2010 as 52596 units whereas in bill dated 9/2010, the meter reading was noted down as 18350 units and the checking staff found that there is a huge difference between both the reading and observed that the complainant was indulging in unauthorized abstraction of electricity as well as causing theft of power as the complainant in connivance with Meter Reader has concealed the actual consumption reading. Accordingly, the checking staff prepared a checking report dated 11.11.2010 at the site in the presence of the complainant/his representative and the meter was removed and packed in Cardboard and paper seal No.71/79 dated 11.11.2010 was affixed in the presence of the complainant/his representative and the removed meter was handed over to JE Kewal Krishan for further action. The complainant/his representative put the signatures on the checking report as well as on the paper seal being satisfied with the manner of checking and putting of paper seal on the packed meter. A copy of the checking report was also supplied to the complainant/his representative. Therefore, memo No.2174 dated 12.11.2010 raising a demand of Rs.1,85,022/- was issued on the basis of actual consumption. 7. The opposite parties have sent a memo No.2174 dated 12.11.2010 Ex.C-2 in which they have written that the premises of the complainant was checked and the meter reading was recorded as 52696 units whereas the bill has been made for 18350 units and has raised the demand for 34346 units and the opposite parties had asked the complainant to deposit the amount within 7 days otherwise, the action will be taken according to the rules and regulations of the opposite parties. A perusal of bills dated 16.04.2010 and 15.06.2010 Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 respectively shows the meter status ’O’ and the bill issued on 15.10.2010 Ex.C-3 issued to the complainant is hand made bill and the status of the meter is not written on this bill. 8. A perusal of Ex.C-7 shows that the meter of the complainant is installed outside his premises that too in the box where the meters of the persons of that area are installed and this box is duly locked where the meter of the complainant is installed. Ex.C-9 is bill ledger which shows that the meter number of the complainant is 1089809 whereas a perusal of Ex.R-2 shows that the meter number is 1089889 and this meter number is different from the meter number of the complainant. The ME Lab report shows that the last notice has been given to the complainant to appear before the ME Lab for the checking of his meter but no such notice has been placed on file by the opposite parties. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case titled Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Karamjit Singh, III (2008) (1) CPR 296, wherein it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 and 17 – Deficiency in service – Electricity bill for Rs.31,804/- issued on ground that during checking seals of meter were found broken, MT seals were found tampered and testing of meter indicated that it was recording less energy by 60 percent – Examination of meter in ME Lab revealed that it was a case of measured theft – District Forum allowed consumer complaint and direct refund of amount which had been deposited by complainant – Appeal – Appellant did not prove it any notice was issued for his presence on the date of testing of meter in ME Lab or that it was tested in presence of complainant – Demand based on such report of ME Lab could not be sustained – No interference was warranted in the order.” “Electric meter must be tested in the ME Lab after giving notice to the consumer of the date, time and venue of the testing of the electric meter in the ME Lab and it should be tested in his presence. If it is not done, the demand raised would be illegal.” Further, the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Sham Sunder, 2005 (3) CPR 670, wherein it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal against quashing of demand notice for theft of electricity by D.Forum – Defective meter not tested in presence of consumer nor taken away with his signature on packing – Whether D.F. was right in quashing the demand notice ? (Yes) – Appeal dismissed.” Further, the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Tirath Ram, III (2003) CPJ 77, wherein it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Electricity – Meter changed – Old meter taken unpacked – Demand raised alleging meter running slow by 76% and seals were tampered – Demands quashed by Forum – Hence appeal – Meter not sealed and packed at the spot – Complainant was never invited to ME Lab at the time of testing – Demand made against established rules, rightly quashed by Forum.” 9. A perusal of checking report Ex.R-6 dated 11.11.2010 shows that the working of the meter :- “the disk of the meter load is running in the correct direction. It is also mentioned that there is no MCB and MTC and difference in the reading of the meter.” No calculation of the connected load and no total connected load has been mentioned on the checking report page No.37. According to this checking report which is read as under:- “1Q mechanical meter has been installed in the premises of the consumer. It is observed that there is a hole in front of the body of the meter and meter reading is 15350 units has been mentioned in bill dated 9/2010 but today during checking, the reading is found to be 52596 units which is huge difference. So, the said meter has to be packed and sent to the ME Lab to know about the reason of hole and difference between both readings regarding seals of the meter, performance of meter and internal parts of the meter also to be checked. At the spot, the meter has been packed vide paper seal No.79/71 dated 11.11.2010 and handed over to JE Kewal Krishan for taking further action.” 10. Again on the perusal of record, it is confirm that the meter number of the complainant is 1089809 whereas the opposite parties have done the checking on meter number 1089889 and has also written the same meter number on seal Ex.R-8 and MCO Ex.R-7 which clearly shows that the meter has been checked by the opposite parties does not belong to the complainant as his meter number is altogether different. Moreover, the meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant in a box with the meter of other persons living in the said locality which is quite clear from Ex.C-7. As per Regulation No.21.2(c) which is reproduced as under:- “The Licensee may require a meter to be installed outside the premises of a consumer and in such an event, the entire cost of installing the meter outside the premises and providing a display unit within the premises will be borne by the Licensee. However, the cost of display unit will be treated as part of the meter cost while determining meter rentals. In a case where the meter/metering equipment is installed by the Licensee outside the premises of a consumer, the consumer will not be responsible for the protection of the meter from theft or damage.” According to this Regulation, the complainant has no control over the meter which is installed outside his premises. 11. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation and the demand raised through memo No.2174 dated 12.11.2010 for Rs.1,85,022/- is hereby quashed. The complainant has already deposited Rs.60,000/- vide receipt No.392 dated 01.12.2010 for seeking stay from this Forum vide order dated 23.11.2010. The opposite parties are directed to refund this amount with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ’
Pronounced in open Forum 18-05-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
| 
