DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.380 of 23-08-2010 Decided on 25-01-2011
Vijay Goyal, aged about 55 years, wife of Sh.Des Raj Goyal, resident of H.No.17188, Aggarwal Colony, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its C.M.D. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Urban Sub Division, Bathinda, through its SDO/XEN.
......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.Lalit Garg, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.J.D.Nayyar, counsel for the 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 up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding an electric connection bearing A/c No.B11 AC210251Y installed in the residential premises of the complainant, having sanctioned load of 11.64 KW. The complainant had been paying the bills regularly. The opposite parties issued a notice/memo No.2887 dated 09.12.2009 raising a demand of Rs.62,308/- from the complainant alleging therein that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was checked by the Sr. XEN Enforcement on 07.12.2009 vide ME Checking No.98 and the complainant was found committing theft of electricity by tampering the meter. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that the said meter installed in the premises of the complainant was replaced by the officials of the opposite parties with new electric meter and the old meter installed in the premises of the complainant was taken by the officials of the opposite parties without packing the same in cardboard box; they have taken the meter in open condition without obtaining the signatures of the complainant or her representative and the meter in question remained in possession of the officials of the opposite parties in unpacked condition and there is every likelihood of tampering with the same by the officials of the opposite parties. The checking was never conducted by the officials of the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant nor the complainant was informed about any alleged checking. The meter reader has been regularly visiting the house of the complainant but never pointed out any defect in the meter. The status of the meter in all the bills issued by opposite parties is clearly shown to be OK status. She further alleged that no opportunity of being heard was provided to her by the opposite parties. The complainant moved the representation and the opposite parties vide its letter dated 22.12.2009, directed the complainant to appear for personal hearing. The husband of the complainant appeared before the opposite parties and passed the final order of assessment vide memo No.29372/74 dated 31.12.2009 and rejected the representation of the complainant on the ground that the average consumption of the complainant during the year 2009 in comparison to the consumption during the last years was less. The complainant had pleaded that she has never indulged in theft of electricity as the consumption of the electricity is in the hands of the consumers themselves and the same can be controlled by using very carefully keeping in view the high prices of the electricity, the consumption of electricity was less than the last years cannot be termed as theft of electricity. The opposite parties have disconnected the connection of the complainant and the complainant had deposited the alleged amount to get the connection restored with the opposite parties under protest through cheque No.020788 dated 08.01.2010 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Bathinda. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the electric meter of the complainant had been checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 07.11.2009 vide ME checking report No.98 and it was found on checking that the seals phase from the inner side were tampered with the help of loop. The checking report had been made at the spot. Accordingly, as per the provisions of section 135 of Electricity Act and CC No.53/2006 and Regulation No.37 of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 of the opposite parties, the complainant had been issued a provisional order of assessment No.2887 dated 09.12.2009 for unauthorized use of electricity, making a demand of Rs.62,308/- which had been calculated as per rules and further directed the complainant to deposit Rs.36,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. The complainant had been further asked that in case, he did not agree with the provisional order, she could file objections, if any, within 15 days from the date of notice with SE/Dy CE DS Circle Bathinda. The complainant filed objections to the provisional demand so made on 22.09.2009 and the designated authority had sent a letter to the complainant to come present before them to present her case on 29.12.2009. The husband of the complainant namely Des Raj came present before the designated authority and was given opportunity of being heard who refused to have committed the theft of electricity and when he was asked that why the consumption for the year 2009 was less than the previous consumption of last three years, he was unable to explain the same. The designated authority vide memo No.29372/74 GC-8A-BTI dated 31.12.2009 passed the final assessment order, mentioning that the amount had been rightly demanded. The complainant admitting and agreeing with the final order of assessment, had deposited the demanded amount without any protest and as such does not any right to challenge the same. The opposite parties have relied upon by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (DB) in case titled Kamal Kumar Vs. PSEB, 2009 (2) RCR 815. 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 complainant got memo No.2887 dated 09.12.2009 for a demand of Rs.62,308/- on the basis that the meter of the complainant was checked by the Sr. XEN Enforcement on 07.12.2009 vide ME Checking No.98 and she was found committing theft of electricity by tampering the meter. The complainant had filed objections and the opposite parties vide their letter dated 22.12.2009 directed the complainant to appear before the opposite parties. The opposite parties after giving an opportunity of being heard to the complainant, issued the final order of assessment vide memo No.29372/74 dated 31.12.2009 to the complainant. 6. The complainant contended that the meter was never packed in the presence of the complainant and the officials of the opposite parties have taken it without packing in cardboard box and without obtaining the signatures. She has alleged in para No.3(A) of her complaint that the meter has been taken by the opposite parties without packing it in the cardboard box whereas a perusal of Ex.R-2 dated 07.12.2009 shows that the meter was duly packed in the cardboard box and after removing the seals, it was checked in the ME Lab and after seeing the meter, it was found that 4 numbers of the seals were tampered. From the internal verification of the meter, the cover of the meter was removed and it had been found that the seals phase was tampered from the inner side with the help of loop. As checked by the checking officials and after tampering the 4 numbers of seals from inside, after burning the yellow phase, the electricity consumption was controlled by the complainant. Hence, this is a case of theft of electricity. The meter was again packed and sealed in the cardboard box for taking the necessary action and was handed over to the concerned officer to keep it in safe custody. This checking report has been signed by the four officials of the opposite parties. The meter of the complainant was checked vide ME checking challan No.98 and after getting the consent from the complainant. After checking the meter in the ME Lab, the demand was raised from the complainant. The opposite parties have taken the support by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (DB) in case titled Kamal Kumar Vs. PSEB, 2009 (2) RCR 815. 7. With utmost regard and humility to the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party, has distinguishable facts. 8. In the present case, the complainant had not been using the electricity by direct kundi connection rather he was found committing theft of electricity by tampering the seals phase from the inner side with the help of loop as checked by the officials of the opposite parties. Moreover, the complainant has deposited the demanded amount raised through memo No.2887 dated 09.12.2009 on 08.01.2010 vide Ex.C-12 without any protest. The complainant has filed this complaint on 23.08.2010 i.e. after 7½ months after depositing the said demand amount. During this period, he has not raised any objection or filed any complaint before any authority which shows, he was fully satisfied with the final order of assessment issued by the opposite parties. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 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 25-01-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
