DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 464 of 11-06-2010 Decided on : 28-02-2011
Shashi Bala W/o Ramesh Chander R/o Hanumangarh Sunita @Simi W/o Rajeev Kumar S/o Yog Raj Anju Rani W/o Sanjeev Wadhawan S/o Yog Raj R/o Purana Thana Building No. 6840, Bathinda. .... Complainants
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Bathinda through its SDO/XEN City Sub Division, Bathinda. .... Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Jai Gopal Goyal, counsel for the complainants. 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 complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant No. 2 and 3 purchased the building MC No. #50034 situated at Street Lalli Wali measuring 115 Sq. Yard wherein electric connection No. GA53/412 was installed in the name of complainant No. 1. Since from the date of purchase, the complainants are paying the electricity bills regularly. The opposite party removed the electric meter on 27-07-2010 in the absence of complainants alleging tampering of seals. The opposite party neither packed nor sealed the meter in a cardboard box nor got the meter checked in M.E. Lab nor called the complainants to appear before M.E. Lab. No notice of checking in M.E. Lab was sent to the complainants before raising the impugned demand of Rs. 25,441/- vide letter No. 471 dated 28-07-2010. The complainants alleged that the impugned letter is illegal and arbitrary. The complainants assail this letter on the grounds that they never tampered with the seals ; the meter was neither removed nor packed and sealed in the presence of complainants or their representative nor the signatures of the complainants were obtained; the meter was installed outside the residential premises on the outer wall; the complainants never broke the meter seals and the assessment has been made at the back of the complainants. The complainants have mentioned several authorities to the effect that mere breakage of seals of meter is not a conclusive proof of theft of energy. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite party to restore electric connection No. GA53/512 and pay to the complainants compensation and costs. The opposite party filed written reply taking legal objections that complainants are not consumers as defined under the 'Act' as the electric connection No. GA53/512 was installed in the premises bearing MC No. #50034 in the name of complainant No. 1 Shashi Bala who sold the said premises to Munish Goyal and Sushil Kumar and aforesaid Munish Goyal and Sushil Kumar further sold the said premises to complainants No. 2 & 3; the complaint has not been filed by competent person as neither the complainant Shashi Bala has signed the complaint nor given any duly sworn affidavit in support of the claim; the connection in question was obtained by Shashi Bala for domestic use but the same is being used in a shop under the name and style of M/s. Wardhman Brothers regarding which the entry was made on the checking report dated 27-07-2010. It has been pleaded that raid was conducted where the electric connection was installed on 27-07-2010 by the enforcement staff headed by Er. Ranjit Singh alongwith JE Ajaib Singh, Gurmit Singh and Lineman Hardev Singh. At the time of checking, the checking party found that meter seals were broken and the internal seals were tampered with to control the consumption. The complainants were indulging in theft of electricity. The checking was made in the presence of Sanjiv Kumar, husband of complainant No. 3 and checking report was prepared at the spot and the said Sanjiv Kumar signed and received the checking report. The meter was removed and packed in cardboard box in the presence of Sanjiv Kumar vide paper seal No. 1132 dated 27-07-2010. Thereafter memo No. 471 dated 28-07-2010 raising a demand of Rs. 25,441/- was issued to the complainants on the basis of theft of electricity as per rules. Further more, the sanctioned load of the said connection was 0.95 KW, but at the time of raid, it was found to be 1.516 KW. Thereafter the meter was sent to M.E. Lab and the opposite party sent notice No. 968 dated 3-11-2010, by hand, which was received by Sammi son of said Sanjiv Kumar, asking the complainants to be present in M.E. Lab on 8-11-2010. The complainants have failed to visit M.E. Lab despite notices dated 15-11-2010 and 22-11-2010 and even on moving application before this Forum. It has been pleaded that the meter was installed in the premises of the complainant Shashi Bala, but at the time of raid, the said connection was being used for commercial purposes in a shop Wardhman Brothers. The meter was easily approachable and within control of the complainants meaning thereby that it was easily possible to tamper with the seals of the meter by the complainants. 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 complainants submitted that the opposite party removed the electric meter in question on 27-07-2010 in their absence. The opposite party neither packed nor sealed the meter nor sent it to ME Lab for checking. The complainants were never called in the M.E. Lab for getting the meter checked in their presence. The complainants neither break-up the meter seals nor tampered with the meter and the impugned demand raised by the opposite party is illegal, null, void and arbitrary and not binding on them. The learned counsel for the complainants further submitted that mere breakages of seals of meter is not a conclusive proof of theft of energy, when the meter reader usually used to take the bio-monthly reading after checking the meter. For this he has referred the cases titled HSEB Vs. Krishan Dev, HSEB Vs. Anoop Stone Crusher, Account Officers Vs. Anwar Ali, SDO Vs. Bhusan Kumar, PSEB Vs. SDE Public Health, PSEB Vs. Kashmir Singh, SDO Vs. Raj Kumar and PSEB Vs. Sukhwinder Singh. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that complainant No. 1 is not competent to file the present complaint. The premises where the electric connection in question is installed was raided by the enforcement staff and it was found that the meter seals were in broken condition and the internal seals of the meter were also found tampered with meaning thereby that the complainant was controlling the consumption of electricity. The checking was conducted in the presence of Sanjiv Kumar, husband of complainant No. 3 and checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of Sanjiv Kumar who put his signature on the checking report and received copy of the same. The removed meter was duly packed and sealed in a cardboard box vide paper seal No. 1132 dated 27-07-2010. Thereafter memo No. 471 dated 28-07-2010 raising a demand of Rs. 25,441/- was issued by the opposite party on the basis of theft. An excess load was also found running i.e. 1.516 KW as against sanctioned load of 0.95 KW. The learned counsel for the opposite party further submitted that despite repeated reminders to the complainants, they did not appear before M.E Lab to get the meter checked in their presence. A perusal of checking report Ex. R-6 reveals that the checking was conducted by the four officials of the opposite party in the presence of complainant and checking report has been signed by one Sanjiv Kumar on behalf of the consumer/complainants being their representative. A paper seal No. 1132 dated 27-07-2010 Ex. R-5 also bears the signatures of the complainant. Thus, the document placed on file by the opposite party prove that checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant and after removal of meter, it was duly packed and sealed in the cardboard box by affixing paper seal duly signed by husband/representative of complainant No. 3, namely Sanjiv Kumar. The version of the opposite party is duly supported by the affidavits Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-4 of the official of the opposite party. As per checking report Ex. R-4, by tampering with both the M.E. seals of the electric meter and by tampering the meter from inside, the consumption of electricity was being controlled. The meter was removed, packed and sealed. The sanctioned load was 0.95 KW whereas 1.516 KW load was found being consumed by the complainants. A note has also been given on the said checking report that bill was being issued on domestic supply basis whereas the connection was being used for shop. This report was duly signed by Sanjiv Kumar, representative of the complainant in token of its acceptance. The complainants have alleged that the electric meter in question was installed outside the premises but they have not placed any document on the file to prove their this version. As discussed above, the checking team of the opposite party also found that electric connection in question was obtained under DS category whereas the same was being in the shop i.e. for NRS. Further, the checking team also found that the load was being used in excess than the sanctioned load. The complainants have utterly failed to produce any evidence on file to prove that connection was being used as DS and not installed in the shop and no excess load was being consumed by the complainants at the time of checking. A perusal of complaint reveals that it has not been signed by Shashi Bala, complainant No. 1 nor Shashi Bala has given any duly sworn affidavit in support of the claim. Thus, this Forum is of the view that complaint filed by complainant No. 1 is not maintainable before this Forum. Further more, the complainants have filed a joint complaint whereas no permission of this Forum was obtained for filing a joint complaint. Hence, complaint is not maintainable. As the citations of the authorities mentioned in the complaint have not been given by the complainant, they cannot be relied upon. In view of what has been discussed above, on merits also there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in raising the demand on account of checking of the meter of the complainants. 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 28-02-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
