State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Satya Rani on 22 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH.
Appeal
case No.104/2002(Pb)/RBT/475/2008
Date of decision :22.1.2010
Punjab State
Electricity Board through its Sr.XEN Operation, Sunder Nagar Division (Spl)
PSEB, Ludhiana.
Appellant
Versus
Satya Rani wife of Sh.Rajinder Kapoor,
resident of H.No.539/33-A, Street No.1-C, New Vishnu Puri, Shivpuri Road,
Ludhiana.
Respondent
Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against
order dated 27.12.2001
passed by Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum- Ludhiana
BEFORE : Honble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President
Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member
Mrs.Neena Sandhu,Member
Present:
Sh.Haminder Goswami, advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
22.1.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President
1. This appeal by Punjab State Electricity Board -opposite party is directed against the order dated 27.12.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum Ludhiana whereby complaint filed by respondent(complainant) Satya Rani was allowed and the penalty amount of Rs.54,518/- imposed upon her was quashed and a direction was issued to the appellant (opposite party) to refund the amount deposited against the disputed demand along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till its refund.
2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum.
3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant was having electricity connection bearing A/c No.SR-15/0348 L installed at her residence and was paying the bills regularly as per the consumption. However, in the month of June,2000 some officials of OPs visited the premises of complainant and demanded previous bills of the meter and took copies of some of the bills. After two days officials of OPs came and changed the old meter and installed the new meter with paper seals. She was told that the seals of the meter were intact. No checking of the meter was done at that time in her presence. In July,2000 officials of OPs again visited the premises of complainant and disconnected the electricity connection and she was served with a demand notice of Rs.54,500/-. It was alleged that the demand was raised on the basis of a checking report of the M.E lab which was made in her absence without giving any notice to her. No checking was ever made at the premises in her presence and the old meter was removed without her consent/signatures. Further the amount of demand had been calculated from the date of installation of the meter. The complainant requested OPs to withdraw the demand and to restore the connection but OPs insisted upon to deposit the amount which was then deposited by the complainant under protest. It was further alleged that complainant never tempered with the meter and as such the demand made by OPs was illegal, arbitrary and without any basis.
Hence, alleging deficiency in service complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum seeking quashing of the penalty and refund thereof with interest besides awarding of compensation and costs.
4. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Consumer Forum was that the premises of the complainant was checked by the Inspectors and A.E.E. Sunder Nagar Division Special on 30.6.2000 and they reported that two number M.E. seals were doubtful and the supply was being used for hosiery works. They further reported that the counter of the meter was changed and the meter was recording 50% less energy. Accordingly the old meter was removed, packed and sealed in the presence of Sh.Dinesh Kumar, representative of the consumer. The packed sealed meter was sent to ME. Lab on 4.7.2000 wherein it was checked in the presence of consumer and from external investigation it was found that M.E. seals were fake and from internal investigation it was confirmed that the counter of the meter was changed and the meter was recording 50% less energy. Since, it was a case of measured theft of electricity, the account of consumer was overhauled in terms of commercial circular No.33/99 and demand notice No.1182 dated 25.7.2000 was sent to the complainant for depositing Rs.54518/- . It was pleaded that the demand of penalty amount was rightly raised and at the request of complainant she was allowed to deposit the amount in installments. It was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the material brought on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, Punjab State Electricity Board through its Senior XEN- opposite parties had filed appeal before the Punjab State Consumer Commission which has been transferred to this Commission under the directions of Honble National Commission.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the file carefully. The only noticeable point as contained in the grounds of appeal is that the meter of the complainant was got tested from the M&E lab wherein it was reported that the counter of the meter was changed and it was showing 50% less energy and ME seals on the body of the meter were found to be fake which clearly established a theft of energy by the consumer and as such on the basis of report of M.E. lab a demand of Rs.54500/- was made which was deposited by the complainant. However, this point has been repelled by the learned counsel for complainant.
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and found that here in the instant case the meter of the complainant was sent to the M& E lab for verification of seals of the meter and the said laboratory found the M& E seals fake and meter counter changed. However, the documents produced by OPs before the District Consumer Forum did not prove that the checking was done as per rules. Ex.R.1 is the spot checking report which does not bear signatures of the consumer or her representative. Ex.R-2 is M.E. Lab which also does not bear the signatures of consumer or Dinesh Kumar, representative of the complainant in whose presence the meter was alleged to have been checked . There is no evidence on behalf of OPs to prove that the consumer or his representative was joined at the time of spot checking as well as at the time checking of meter in the M.E. Lab. There is no evidence that any notice was issued to the complainant as to why her account should not be overhauled as the meter was found to be slow. There is no evidence that the complainant was caught red handed while committing theft of electric energy. Further the officials of the OP had been taking reading regularly but they never noticed that the seals were tampered . Therefore, the District Consumer Forum had rightly quashed the notice demanding a sum of Rs.54,500/- as penalty.
8. Before parting with this order, it is observed that the interest allowed on the amount to be refunded @ 12% p.a. appears to be on the higher side and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and present day interest on various schemes of the banks, the same is reduced to 6% p.a.
9. But for modification in the rate of interest payable on the amount to be refunded, which has been reduced from 12% p.a. to 6% p.a , this appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
Announced ( Justice Pritam Pal)(Retd.) 22nd Jan.,2010 President (Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor )(Retd.) Member (Mrs. Neena Sandhu) Member *js