DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC. No. 584 of 27-12-2010 Decided on 18-05-2011
Sonam Rani W/o Sanjiv Kumar, R/o Gali No. 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Colony, Rampura Phul. .......Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its MD/CMD/Secretary. Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Distribution Division, Rampura Phul. SDO/AEE Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division Rampura Phul.
......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. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. R.D. Goyal, counsel for the opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
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 'Act'). In brief the case of the complainant is that she is having SP connection No. 91/141 for her RO Plant. The said plant was installed about 7 months back and the complainant is getting the supply from rural area after getting the loan from the bank to earn her livelihood. Due to installation of RO plant in village, the supply is being given 2-3 hours in morning and 2-3 hours in the evening. The complainant is paying the bills so issued by the opposite parties and nothing is due against the complainant. The complainant all of a sudden got a memo No. 6524 dated 17-12-2010 of Rs. 4,95,311/- under Section 135 of Electricity Act on the basis of checking report dated 16-12-2010 wherein it was written that at the time of checking the meter, it was observed that after tampering the ME seals internal mechanism was found tampered and complainant was controlling the consumption and it was a case of theft. After getting the said memo, the complainant filed objections before the designated authority cum Deputy Chief Engineer Distribution Bathinda on 21-12-2010, who found the mistake of the opposite parties and reduced the amount but did not quash the total amount. He did not afford the opportunity to the complainant to present her case. The Deputy Chief Engineer decided the objections vide his letter No. 19559/61-G.C.8-A Rampura of dated 22-12-2010. On the direction of Deputy Chief Engineer, the opposite party No. 2 issued fresh memo No. 6656 dated 24-12-2010 for the payment of Rs. 1,16,040/- and to pay compounding fee of Rs. 1,95,500/- within 7 days. The complainant assails the impugned memo of the opposite parties on the various grounds that neither the checking dated 16-12-2010 was made in her presence nor her signatures were obtained on the checking report; the complainant never committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly; theft cannot be made as the meter is installed on the road; the complainant never tampered the ME seals or internal mechanism; the complainant never controlled the consumption rather the electricity in the village is being supplied only 2-3 hours in a day where the minor plant of RO is installed; the meter was neither sealed nor packed in cardboard box in the presence of the complainant nor the signatures of the complainant were obtained. The opposite parties have not followed the procedure before taking action under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. They directly disconnected the supply and removed the meter against the rules without providing any opportunity to defend the illegal action and no evidence of theft was collected at the spot. The complainant alleged that the impugned demand raised by the opposite parties is illegal and without any base, hence this complaint. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and admitted that connection No. SP91/141 has been issued on 7-4-2010 for RO plant . It has been pleaded that on 16-12-2010, the connection of the complainant was checked in the presence of Manager Suresh Kumar. The sanctioned load of connection of the complainant is 19.55 KW. At the time of checking, it was found that the M.E. seals of the meter of the complainant were tampered and the meter was internally interfered with malafide intention to stop the reading of the actual consumption in the meter. Thus, the complainant was committing theft of electricity. The meter was removed, packed and sealed in the presence of the representative of the complainant. The copy of the checking report was given to the Manager, present at the spot who after receiving the same, signed it without raising any objection. The checking was made by Er. Ranjit Singh AEE (Enforcement), Bathinda alongwith his staff. On the basis of checking a provisional assessment order was issued to the complainant for deposit of Rs. 4,95,311/- against which the complainant filed objections before the Deputy Chief Engineer. After giving opportunity of being heard, the complainant was ordered to charge the amount as per Annexure section 4D(b), H(a), F(a) (i) (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations Act 2007 of Punjab State Regulatory Commission and after that final assessment order dated 24-12-2010 was issued to the complainant for deposit of Rs. 1,16,400/- for which the complainant is bound to deposit. It has been further pleaded that the demand is legal and valid. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant has got released the aforesaid electric connection for R.O. Plant meter of which has been installed outside on the road. The opposite parties have raised the demand vide impugned memo on the basis of theft of electricity on the ground that the seals of the meter were tampered with, which is not possible as the meter has been installed outside on the road. He submitted that RO plant has been installed in the village where the supply of electricity is being given for very short period and R.O. Plant is being run for 2-3 hours in the morning and 2-3 hours in the evening. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that no checking was made in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative. The alleged Suresh Kumar in whose presence the checking was made as stated by the opposite parties in their written reply, is not known to the complainant as she does not have any Manager namely Suresh Kumar. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that checking of the electric connection of the complainant was made by Er. Ranjit Singh AEE (Enforcement) Bathinda alongwith staff and it was found that M.E. seals of the meter were tampered with to stop the reading of actual consumption. Since, it was a case of theft of energy, the electric connection of the complainant was disconnected, meter was removed, sealed and packed in the presence of the representative of the complainant namely Suresh Kumar, Manager of the complainant, who signed the checking report without raising any objection. He submitted the impugned demand is legal and valid. A perusal of checking report Ex. R-5 reveals that checking of electric connection bearing A/c No. SP91/141 of the complainant was conducted on 16-12-2010 by Er. Ranjeet Singh, AEE (Enforcement), Bathinda and connected load was found according to the sanctioned load as the Max demand - 14.60 KVA (14.00 KW). It has been mentioned on the checking report :- “ After tampering both the M.E. seals, the consumption of electricity was being controlled by tampering the meter from internal side. It is a case of theft of energy. Meter after removal in 'as it is condition' packed by Purshottam Kumar, J.E. City Rampura vide seal No. PS. No. 7/55 dated 16-12-2010.” The complainant has denied the checking as well as the fact that Suresh Kumar, who has signed the checking report, is known to her or he is Manager at her R.O. Plant. However, if it is admitted that checking was conducted as per checking report, M.E seals of the meter were found tampered and aforesaid representative of the complainant signed the checking report, even then, as per their own regulations, the complainant is not liable for any damage to meter as the meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant. The opposite parties have not specifically denied the fact in their written statement or in their affidavits that meter of the complainant is not installed out side the premises i.e. on the road. In the case where the meter is installed outside the premises of a consumer, the consumer will not be responsible for the protection of such a meter from theft or damage. Regulation No. 21.2(c) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007 of P.S.E.B. provides that :-
“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 are 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.”
Moreover, opposite parties have not made out case that after the meter was removed, there is increase in consumption of energy after installation of new meter. After receipt of provisional order of assessment amount to Rs. 4,95,311/-, the complainant filed objections before the designated authority cum Deputy Chief Engineer Distribution, Bathinda on 21-12-2010 and the said authority vide order Ex. C-3, after perusal of record found that complainant is not liable to pay Rs. 4,95,311/-. Thereafter, the opposite parties on the basis of order Ex. C-3 of the aforesaid authority, issued final order of assessment vide Ex. C-2 raising a demand of Rs. 1,16,040/- from the complainant. Thus, revision of order and reduction of amount itself shows that how the opposite parties acted in a hasty manner without going into the root of the cause. Further in the present case, the opposite parties have failed to prove that Suresh Kumar is Manager of the complainant. Hence, the checking has been done in the absence of the complainant. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in the case titled 2009(2) CPC 579 Satish Vs. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., wherein it has been held :- “...Magnet in meter – Officer of opposite party visited Chaki premises of complainant and allegedly found that electric meter was stopped with the help of a magnet – Report was prepared in the presence of servant of complainant – Brother of complainant taken to police station – Signature of complainant was taken on various papers in the police station – Later on a notice was served on complainant's mother through which complainant was asked to pay a bill of Rs. 3 lacs for misuse of electricity – Complaint filed with District Forum which was dismissed – Apparently District Forum has ignored the provisions of sec. 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as report as prepared in the absence of the complainant – Penalty was imposed with predetermined mind – OP directed to restore the connection within 15 days – However, prayer for initiating proceedings against SDO under Sec. 340 of Cr. PC cannot be accepted as the official had acted in good faith without any malafide intention- Appeal allowed.” Further the support can be taken by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Haryana State Commission incase titled S.D.O. “OP” Sub Division, UHBVNL Versus Kapur Singh April, 2010 CPJ 32 wherein it has been held :- “......Theft alleged – M & P seals found tampered with – Penalty of Rs. 40,000/- imposed – Allegedly, meter checking done in complainant's absence – Deficiency in services alleged – Complaint allowed – Hence appeal – Sales circular on record – Meter dispute not referred to the concerned S.D.O. - Penalty imposed straightway – Mere tampering of seals not a conclusive proof of energy theft – Deficiency in services proved – Order upheld – No interference required.” It has been further discussed in the said judgement that :- “....7. It has been settled in a catena of judgements that mere tampering of the seals of the meter is not a conclusive proof of theft of energy unless and until it is proved by any cogent and convincing evidence. It is not the case of the opposite parties that at the time of checking the complainant had used any artificial means in his meter in order to abstract energy dishonestly. In view of the above, since there is no corroborative evidence on record to prove the case of theft of energy by the complainant we do not feel any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the penalty of Rs. 40,000/- has been quashed.” The meter has been produced in this Forum vide Ex. C-8 but has not been sent to M.E. Lab. The meter is sealed but not signed by the complainant Smt. Sonam Rani As per commercial circular No. 22/99 :- “.....As per SMI-104, meters on the removal are to be sent to M.E. Laboratory within a maximum period of 15 days. Difficulties have been reported in complying with these instructions because M.E. Laboratories have fixed only one day in a month for receiving such meters from one sub division. It has, therefore, now been decided that the removed meters against any Meter Change Order be sent to M.E. Laboratory in the sealed card board boxes duly signed by the concerned PSEB Official/Official and the consumer or his representative within a period of 15 to 30 days.” The opposite parties should have produced the meter in their evidence after getting it checked from the M.E. Lab that too to prove that the same meter number has been checked in their laboratory in the presence of the complainant. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts. 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 in raising the impugned demand from the complainant without any basis. Hence, this complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with Rs.2,000/- as compensation and cost and impugned memo No. 6656 dated 24-12-2010 Ex. C-2 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 58,000/- alongwith interest @9% P.A. from the date of deposit till realization, deposited by the complainant vide Ex. C-13, for restoration of her electric connection. The compliance of this order be made within 45 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 : 18-05-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
