DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 477 of 15-10-2010 Decided on : 25-01-2011
Manjit Singh S/o Sh. Satdev Singh aged about 40 years R/o H. No. 19739, Street No. 10/A, Ajit Road, Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division, Bathinda, through its S.D.O. /A.E.E. .... 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.Gurpreet Singh, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.R. Khattar, counsel for the opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
This 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 'Act'). The complainant is holder of electric connection No. PR-61/87 installed in the SCF No. 43, Opp. Rose Garden, Improvement Trust Market, Bathinda with sanctioned load of 4.80 KW. The complainant had mortgaged the said shop with Sh. Nachattar Singh S/o Sh. Bahadur Singh, who is running the business of Car bazaar in the said shop. On 14-08-2010, S.D.O. (Enforcement) came to check the electric connection in question and aforesaid Nachattar Singh telephonically informed about the same to the brother of the complainant. The brother of the complainant namely Varinder Singh reached the shop but the officials of the opposite parties had already opened the meter after breaking the seals of the meter and packed the meter in his presence in the cardboard box and obtained the signatures of his brother on some blank papers with an assurance that the same are obtained in routine. The opposite parties later on misused blank signed papers that both the ME seals were tampered and the consumption was being controlled by tampering the meter from inside and on the basis of alleged checking report, the opposite parties issued a notice/memo No. 638 dated 18-08-2010 directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 64,674/- on account of theft of electricity. After receiving the said memo, the complainant moved an application before S.E. Circle, PSPCL, Bathinda, stating therein that the alleged checking has been conducted at his back and requested to review the impugned order of provisional assessment. On the request of the complainant, the said meter was got checked from M.E. Lab Bathinda on 17-09-2010 and as per M.E. Lab report, there was no tampering from inside the meter. The meter was even tested with Dial Test, Accuracy Test Set and the speed of the meter was also found accurate and as such, there was no question of the theft of electricity. The complainant never tampered with the M.E. seals rather the seals were tampered by the officials of the opposite parties themselves. Hence, this complaint seeking direction of this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned memo and to pay him compensation and cost. The opposite parties filed their written reply and had taken legal objections that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the complainant had already approached to Dispute Settlement Committee. It has been submitted that on 14-08-2010 enforcement staff headed by Er. Ranjit Singh raided the shop in question and it was found that both the M.E. Seals of the meter were tampered with and the consumption was being controlled by tampering the meter from inside and as such, the complainant/beneficiary was found committing theft of energy. The meter was removed, packed and sealed in the cardboard box in the presence of Nachhattar Singh and brother of the complainant namely Varinder Singh. The checking report was prepared at the spot and Varinder Singh signed the same. On the basis of checking report, a memo No. 638 dated 18-08-2010 for Rs. 64,674/- was issued to the complainant as per rules of the PSPCL and the complainant is bound to pay the same. The complainant filed application before SE Circle, PSPCL, Bathinda for revision of the order of provisional assessment and thereafter he did not turn up. The meter was sent to ME Lab and it was checked in the presence of the complainant and it was found that both the ME seals were tampered which clearly revealed that complainant had indulged in theft of electricity. The opposite parties had pleaded that memo dated 18-08-2010 is legal and the complainant is bound to pay the demanded amount. The complainant has filed documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-12 in his evidence and in rebuttal, the opposite parties have placed on record documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-8. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the business of car bazaar is being run by Sh. Nachattar Singh in SCF No. 43, Opp. Rose Garden, Improvement Trust Market, Bathinda, of the complainant,where an electric connection No. PR-61/87 has been installed. On 14-08-2010, S.D.O. (Enforcement) checked the electric connection and when the brother of complainant namely Varinder Singh had reached at the shop, the opposite parties had already opened the meter after breaking its seals and packed the meter in the cardboard box and obtained the signatures of Varinder Singh on some blank papers. The opposite parties have issued a notice/memo No. 638 dated 18-08-2010 directing the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 64,674/- on account of theft of electricity on the pretext that both the ME seals of the meter were found tampered with and the consumption was being controlled. On the request of the complainant, the meter was got checked from M.E. Lab Bathinda and as per M.E. Lab report, there was no tampering from inside of the meter. The meter was also tested with Dial Test and Accuracy Test Set and the speed of the meter was found Okay and as such, there was no theft of electricity and M.E. seals were tampered by the opposite parties themselves. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties raised legal objection that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint as the complainant has already approached Dispute Settlement committee. The learned counsel submitted on 14-08-2010 enforcement staff headed by Er. Ranjit Singh raided the shop in question and found that both the M.E. seals of the meter were tampered with and the consumption was being controlled by tampering the meter from inside, as such the complainant was committing theft of energy. The meter was removed, packed and sealed in the presence of Varinder Singh, brother of the complainant and the checking report was prepared at the spot which was duly signed by the said Varinder Singh. On the basis of checking report, a memo in question was issued. The meter was checked in the M.E. Lab and M.E. Seals of the meter were found tampered with. The opposite parties have neither placed on file any order passed by the Dispute Settlement Committee nor have placed any receipt of the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties seeking redressal of his grievances from Dispute Settlement Committee to prove that complainant had already approached Dispute Settlement Committee. Hence, this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. The officials of the opposite parties conducted the checking on 14-08-2010 and the copy of checking report is Ex. R-3. The English version of the relevant portion of this checking report reads as under :- “.....Both the M.E. seals of the meter are tampered. The consumption was being controlled by tampering the meter from inside. The meter was removed and packed with P.S.No. 178891 dated 14-08-2010. Action be taken as per instructions and the undersigned be informed. Load : Found as per sanctioned load.” The electric meter in question was checked in the M.E. Lab on 17-09-2010 and the copies of the M.E. Lab report has been placed on file by both the parties i.e. Ex. C-3 and Ex. R-5. The English rendering of the relevant portion of the M.E. Lab report is reproduced hereunder :- “.......Both the M.E. seals of the meter were found tampered with but there was no tampering in the meter. Thereafter the meter was tested with Dial Test and Accuracy Test Set and it was found within limitation.” The opposite parties have themselves admitted in their aforesaid checking report Ex. R-3 that load was found as per sanctioned load and in M.E. Lab report Ex. R-5 that there was no tampering from the internal side of the meter. Thus, there was no question of controlling the consumption by the complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing impugned memo without any base. In view of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted with cost of Rs. 1,000/- and the impugned memo No. 638 dated 18-08-2010 raising a demand of Rs. 64,674/- from the complainant is hereby quashed. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced 25-01-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
