DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA. CC.No.480 of 18-10-2010 Decided on 18-05-2011
Krishan Lal, aged about 59 years, son of Sh.Chhotu Ram son of Sh.Ganga Ram, resident of 234, Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, (erst-while Punjab State Electricity Board), through its M.D./Chairman. A.E.E./S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., (erst-while Punjab State Electricity Board), Cantt Sub 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.K.K.Sharma, 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 upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complaint is holding domestic electricity connection bearing No. KN-38/80(New No.B11KN380080M). The allegations of the complainant are that on 06.09.2010, the officials of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant on routine checking and they found no irregularity in the working of meter and the supply thereof and rather found the same in OK condition and ultimately, they obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank printed Forms and blank papers with the pretext that the same are in token of their visit as they have to report the higher officials regarding the details of checking, conducted by them and after obtaining the signatures of the complainant on blank printed forms and blank papers, without conveying the contents thereof to the complainant, they started demanding Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and further threatened the complainant to involve in the case of theft, if he would not fulfill their demand and they shall made the report to the effect that the complainant is indulging in theft of electricity but he refused to meet with the said demand. Finally, the visiting officials arranged the direct supply of electricity and removed the meter on the pretext that they shall get the same checked from the M.E. Lab. The opposite parties have issued a provisional Demand notice vide memo no. 822 dated 07.09.2010 u/s 135 Electricity Act, whereby a demand of Rs.58,156/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking dated 06.09.2010 with the allegations that the complainant has been controlling the electricity supply to the extent of 64.34% by tempering the inner portion of the meter and by tempering both the ME seals and directed the complainant to deposit the impugned amount and further to pay Rs.24,000/- for compounding the of offence of theft. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and requested to withdraw the said demand as he never indulged in theft of electricity. The complainant has challenged the said demand on various ground that the complainant neither indulged in theft of electricity nor he tampered with the meter or ME seals; at the time of alleged checking, the checking staff has not pointed out any irregularity on the part of the complainant rather his signatures has been obtained by mis-representation on blank printed Forms and papers without explaining the contents thereof; the copy of checking report has neither supplied to the complainant nor the same was pasted outside the house of the complainant; no proper opportunity of being heard was provided to the complainant; the complainant raised objections to the extent that the he made two complaints No.195 dated 18.02.2010 and No.224 dated 19.02.2010 regarding fault in the electricity supply, which was attended by the officials of the opposite parties, but they never pointed out any such irregularity on the part of the complainant; the name of the checking officer has not been mentioned on the demand notice; the meter has not been got checked from the M.E. Lab; the condition of the meter and the seals have never been shown to the complainant at the time of installation. The complainant has further alleged that the opposite parties have removed the meter in order to put pressure upon the complainant to pay the demanded amount. The complainant visited the opposite party No.2 and requested him to get the part payment deposited and to restore the electricity connection as he wanted to challenge the checking and demand notice, but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite parties namely Ranjeet Singh, A.E.E. and Ajaib Singh J.E, in the premises of complainant on 6.9.2010 in the presence of complainant. On the receipt of secret complaint, the checking was conducted but during checking, they found that both the M.E. Seals were tampered with and by tampering the inner part of the meter, the complainant was controlling the electricity consumption by unauthorized means and meter was found running slow to the extent of 64.34%. The checking staff held it to be case of theft of electricity, the connection of the complainant was disconnected and meter was removed and sealed, accordingly, the checking report was prepared at the site by the checking staff in the presence of complainant as per the existing condition and put his signatures on the checking report in token thereof while admitting the same to be correct and a copy of the checking report was served to the complainant. Accordingly, on the basis of the said checking report, a provisional Demand notice u/s 135 of Electricity Act, bearing memo No.822 dated 07.09.2010 thereby raising a demand of Rs.58156/- on account of theft of electricity and Rs.24,000/- for compounding the offence was issued to complainant, whereby the complainant was directed to deposit the demanded amount or to file the objections before SE, Op. Circle Bathinda within 15 days and the complainant filed the objections which were considered and his objections were declined vide letter dated 27.09.2010 and held the demand to be legal and valid but the complainant instead of depositing the demanded amount, has filed the present Complaint. 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 main allegation of the complainant is that on 06.09.2010, the officials of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant on routine checking and they found no irregularity in the working of meter and the supply thereof, rather found the same in OK condition and they obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank printed Forms and blank papers on the pretext that the same are in token of their visit as they have to report the higher officials regarding the details of checking, conducted by them. They started demanding Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and further threatened that in case, the complainant would fail to fulfill their demand, they will make false case of theft. The visiting officials arranged the direct supply of electricity and removed the meter on the pretext that they shall get the same checked from the M.E. Lab. The opposite parties have issued a provisional Demand notice vide memo no. 822 dated 07.09.2010 u/s 135 Electricity Act, whereby a demand of Rs.58,156/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking dated 06.09.2010 and it has been written that the complainant has been controlling the electricity supply to the extent of 64.34% by tempering the inner portion of the meter and by tempering both the ME seals and directed the complainant to deposit the impugned amount and further to pay Rs.24,000/- for compounding the of offence of theft. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and requested to withdraw the said demand but the opposite parties refused to do so. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds as mentioned above. 6. The opposite parties have issued a memo/notice on the ground that the complainant was controlling the electricity consumption in unauthorized means and the meter was running slow to the extent of 64.34% and the checking staff held it to be case of theft of electricity and the connection of the complainant was disconnected and the meter was removed and sealed, accordingly the checking report was prepared at the site in the presence of complainant as per the existing condition and the complainant put his signatures on the checking report in token thereof while admitting the same to be correct and a copy of the checking report was served to the complainant. According to the basis of checking report, a provisional order of assessment u/s 135 of Electricity Act, bearing memo No.822 dated 07.09.2010 for a sum of Rs.58156/- on account of theft of electricity and Rs.24,000/- for compounding the offence has been issued to the complainant. The complainant was directed to deposit the demanded amount or to file the objections within 15 days. The complainant filed the objections but were declined by the opposite parties vide letter dated 27.09.2010 and held the demand to be legal and valid but the complainant instead of depositing the demanded amount, has filed the present Complaint. The opposite parties have further submitted that they have neither taken any signatures of the complainant on blank papers nor demanded Rs.15,000/ as gratification. 7. A perusal of Ex.R-3 which is checking report dated 06.09.2010 shows that the connected load was found according to the sanctioned load. The ME seals were not there. Both the ME seals were found tampered and the inner portion of the meter was found also tampered. The complainant was controlling the electricity consumption by unauthorized means and the meter was found running slow to the extent of 64.34%. The accuracy of the meter was checked with the meter testing equipment and ESR. The checking report has been signed by the complainant and the same is duly supported with the affidavit of the checking party. As the checking report has been signed by the complainant, shows that the checking report has been duly received by the complainant. A provisional order of assessment has also been issued to the complainant vide Ex.C-5 and he filed objections to the Designated Authority vide Ex.C-4. The opposite parties have not issued to the complainant any final order of assessment. The opposite parties have specifically mentioned in their reply that the meter has been removed, packed and sealed in the Cardboard Box but no proper seal has been produced on record to show that it has been duly removed in the presence of the complainant and signed by him. The checking report shows that the meter was running slow by 64.34% which has been checked by meter checking equipment and ESR. It has also been mentioned on the checking report that the ME seals were found tampered with by tampering the inner portion and by tempering both the ME seals. In the present case, the meter was not sent to the ME Lab, as no ME Lab report has not been placed on file. Moreover, the complainant was never asked to appear before the ME Lab to check the meter in his presence. The connected load has been found according to the sanctioned load. As per Regulation No.54.6 which is read as under:- “Defective/Inoperative Meter: If the meter is found to be running slow by more than 3%, it shall be replaced with a new meter. The meter on removal must be sent to the ME Lab with a maximum period of one week and accounts of the consumer shall be adjusted on receipt of the test results from the ME Lab for a period not exceeding 6 months preceding the date of checking. Compliance of these instructions shall be personal responsibility of AE/AEE/Sr.Xen concerned.” According to regulation 54.6, if the meter has been found running 3% slow, then it is mandatory to sent it in the ME Lab. In the present case, the meter is slow by 64.34% and has not sent to the ME Lab. Moreover, the seals and inner body of the meter also found tampered. If, we rely on the version of the opposite parties that the meter was checked by the meter checking equipment and ESR even then the meter where the seals are found tampered with, required to be sent to the ME Lab. Without the report of ME Lab, the case of theft cannot be established. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.(HVPN) Vs. Gautam Plastic, 2008(1)CLT, decided on 02.011.2007 wherein it has been held that:- “The meter was not tested in the M&T Lab – No notice of testing was given to the consumer – The principles of the natural justice not followed – Complainant has not approached Nigam for compounding of the offence if any and unilaterally a penalty has been levied – Order of the Fora below allowing the complaint upheld.” 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. Mohan Lal, II(2007)CPJ 166 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission that :- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Electricity – Theft of energy alleged – Meter not packed and sealed in presence of consumer/his representative – No notice sent to complainant to come present in M.E.Lab. when meter was to be checked – Under rules of natural justice, meter atleast should have been tested in his presence, which has not been done – In said circumstances, demand of Rs.2,02,690/- from O.P., rightly quashed.” Further, the complainant alleged that the opposite parties demanded illegal gratification. No such document is placed on file by the complainant to prove his this allegation. Thus, the contention of the complainant regarding gratification is not tenable. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,500/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.58,156/-. The complainant was directed to deposit Rs.29,000/- for the restoration of the electricity vide order dated 20.10.2010, the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.29,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. if deposited by the complainant. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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 18-05-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
