DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 494 of 27-10-2010 Decided on : 25-02-2011
Vikas Garg, aged about 32 years S/o Late Som Nath Garg, R/o H. No. 15, Veer Colony, Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City 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.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 having a domestic electric connection No. PB 36/437 installed in his house situated at Bank Bazar, Bathinda. The complainant has paid all the bills issued by the opposite parties on minimum monthly charges basis. The meter was in the name of Sh. Som Nath Garg who died on 19-04-2009 and thereafter all the bills were being paid by the complainant. The complainant applied for the shifting of meter on dated 27-08-2009 and paid Rs. 450/- vide receipt No. 374. The meter was changed on 24-04-2010 and new meter bearing No. 717798 was installed. The complainant was called in M.E. Lab on 20-08-2010 for the checking purposes of removed meter No. 121232. The officials of the opposite parties got his signatures on some blank papers and unfilled form without doing any checking. The complainant, all of a sudden got a memo No. 787 dated 10-09-2010 for the payment of Rs. 62,867/- on the basis of checking report dated 20-08-2010 wherein it has been written that meter was removed from the sealed card board box and was checked in M.E. Lab and it was found that meter seals were tampered. To know about the internal reading meter cover was opened and it was found that there were scratches on the meter counter and due to tampering, consumption was being controlled and it was a case of theft of energy. The complainant filed objections against the alleged memo No. 787 before the Superintendent Er. Operation Circle, Bathinda, who dismissed the objections without affording an opportunity of being heard. The complainant assails the impugned demand of the opposite parties on the grounds that checking dated 20-08-2010 was never made in his presence; he never committed any theft; the alleged report is one sided ; the meter is installed on the road and as such, theft cannot be made; the complainant did not tamper the meter; the alleged amount of Rs. 62,867/- and Rs. 27,000/- raised by the opposite parties without any basis; it is not mentioned in the said memo that since when the theft is being committed and no evidence of theft was collected at the spot. The complainant made many requests to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned demand, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint. The opposite parties filed written reply and pleaded that meter fee was deposited by the complainant vide receipt No. E 452/369 dated 7-08-2009 regarding A/c No. PG 36/437 in the name of Som Nath Garg and new meter bearing No. 717798 was installed vide MCO No. 142/76776 dated 12-11-2009 on 04-06-2010 by Ravinder Kumar AJE because the complainant wanted to get installed 3 phase meter. The meter No. 121232 was removed from the premises of the complainant, duly packed in a card board box in the presence of the complainant and was sealed with paper seal No. 1723 dated 4-6-2010 which was also signed by the complainant. The card board box was opened in the presence of the complainant for checking and it was found that the seals of the card board box were intact and on checking, it was found that the glass of meter was tampered. To inspect the internal condition of meter, the cover was opened and found that the counter plate and counter were bearing scratch marks. Thus, by tampering the meter counter and glass of meter, the complainant was controlling the consumption of electricity and it was a case of theft. Accordingly, the complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 62,867/- and was also advised to file his grievance if any, within 15 days, but he filed the same after the period of limitation and hence it was rejected. It has been pleaded that checking was made in the presence of the complainant and he signed the checking report voluntarily. Parties have led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that meter is in the name of Som Nath Garg who died on 19-04-2009. Thereafter all the bills were paid by the complainant. The complainant applied for shifting of the meter on 27-08-2010 and paid Rs. 450/- vide receipt 374. The old meter was removed and new meter bearing No. 717798 was installed. The complainant was called in the M.E. Lab on 20-08-2010 for checking of the old removed meter No. 121232. In the M.E. Lab the officials of the opposite parties got the signatures of the complainant on some blank paper without doing any checking. The complainant received a memo No. 787 dated 10-09-2010 on 7-10-2010 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act for the payment of Rs. 62,867/- on the basis of checking report dated 20-08-2010 on the pretext that meter was checked in the ME Lab and it was found that the seals were tampered with and to know internal reading, the meter cover was opened and it was found that there were scratches on the meter counter. The opposite parties prepared the case of theft of energy on the ground that the consumption was being controlled by the complainant. The complainant filed objections which were dismissed without giving him opportunity of being heard. The learned counsel for the complainant challenged the said memo and submitted that the checking dated 20-08-2010 was not conducted in the presence of the complainant; the alleged checking report is one sided ; the meter is installed on the road; the complainant has neither committed any theft of energy nor tampered with the seals of the meter nor the meter was packed in the card board box nor the signatures of the opposite parties were obtained. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that meter fee was deposited vide receipt No. E 452/369 dated 27.8.09 regarding A/c No. PG 36/437 in the name of Som Nath Garg and meter No. 717798 was installed vide MCO No. 142/76776 dated 12-11-2009 on 4-6-2010. The old meter bearing No. 121232 was removed, duly packed and sealed in the cardboard box bearing seal No. 1723 dated 4-6-2010 Ex. R-3, which was signed by the complainant. The cardboard box was opened in the presence of the complainant for checking and it was found that the glass of the meter was tampered with. To inspect the internal condition of meter, the cover was opened and it was found that the counter plate and counter were bearing scratch marks. Thus, by tampering the meter counter and glass of meter, the complainant was controlling consumption of electricity and hence it was a case of theft of electricity and accordingly the demand in question was raised. A perusal of M.E Lab report Ex. R-4 reveals that it has been signed by the complainant and four officials of the opposite parties. A paper seal Ex. R-3 also bears the signatures of the complainant. Thus, the document placed on file by the opposite parties prove that checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant and after removal of old meter, it was duly packed and sealed in the cardboard box by affixing paper seal duly signed by the complainant and thereafter meter was checked in the M.E. Lab in the presence of the complainant. The version of the opposite parties supported by the affidavit Ex. R-9 and Ex. R-10 of the official of the opposite parties. As per M.E. Lab report Ex. R-4, the complainant after tampering the meter counter and tampering with the meter was controlling the consumption. This report was duly signed by the complainant in token of its acceptance. The complainant has alleged that his meter was installed outside his premises but he has not placed any document on the file to prove his this version. In view of what has been discussed above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising the demand on account of checking of the meter of the complainant. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced 25-02-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member |
