State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Baldev Singh vs Senior Executive Engineer on 18 July, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2012
Date of Institution: 21.3.2012
Date of Decision: 18.7.2012
Baldev Singh son of Jangir Singh son of Mal Singh, resident of Street No.
6, K.K. Road, Guru Angad Nagar, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.....Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
Senior Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.....Respondents
First Appeal under Section 15 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
against the order dated 15.2.2012
passed by the District Consumer
Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Before:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice, S.N. Aggarwal, President
Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member
Present:
For the appellant : Sh. Narinder Sharma, Advocate BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This is an appeal against the order dated 15.2.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (hereinafter called as "District Forum") vide which the complaint of the appellant/complainant (hereinafter called as "appellant") was partially allowed.
2. In the present appeal, the appellant has sought the enhancement of compensation awarded to him on account of mental harassment and agony First Appeal No. 344 of 2012 Page 2 of 5 suffered by him on account of illegal and unauthorized notice in a false theft of electricity case.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant had an electric connection No. Y62AT290279P in his house. On 30.5.2010, 4 boys came to his house and told that they were employees of the Contractor and were to shift the meter of the electric connection outside the premises of the appellant. The appellant opposed this shifting but the meter was ultimately shifted outside the premises. On 20.8.2010, Flying Squad of the respondents checked the said connection and found that the power supply was being used directly without passing through the meter. Checking report was prepared on site. On 24.8.2010, the appellant filed complaint before the higher authorities against the employees of the Contractor. The Senior Executive Engineer, Technical Audit, Bathinda conducted spot inspection on 30.9.2010. In the meantime, on 22.9.2010, a notice under Section 135 of Electricity Act was issued to the appellant for the theft of electricity detected by the Flying Squad on 22.8.2010.
4. However, on the representation by the appellant, the Superintending Engineer concluded that there was lapse on the part of the employees of the Contractor and the concerned J.E., who did not seal the meter at the time of shifting of the meter. The appellant was found innocent. The amount of the notice issued to the appellant was ordered to be recovered from the Contractor whose employees shifted the meter on 30.5.2010.
5. Hence the complaint before the District Forum alleging that the appellant has suffered a great mental agony and harassment and prayed for a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- as costs.
6. Upon notice, the appellant filed a written statement in which it was pleaded that there was no cause of action to file the present complaint. It was stated that checking was conducted by the Flying Squad on 20.8.2010 First Appeal No. 344 of 2012 Page 3 of 5 and it was found that the Block of the meter was melted and the supply of the house was found running direct. When the meter was checked in the ME Lab, it was confirmed that the Block of the meter was melted. The case of theft of electricity was proved. Thereafter, provisional order of assessment was issued to the appellant on 22.9.2010. When the appellant filed objections, the case was referred to the Disputes Settlement Committee and after enquiry, it was found that the Block of the meter was melted due to the fault of the workers of the Contractor. Therefore, it was ordered that the amount, mentioned in notice dated 22.9.2010, be recovered from the Contractor. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
8. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, partially accepted the complaint of the appellant and allowed a sum of Rs. 7,000/- by way of compensation and costs.
9. In the present appeal, the appellant has submitted that there was no fault of the appellant but he was slapped with a notice of alleged theft of electricity which caused a great mental and physical tension besides loss of reputation.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessment of compensation awarded is not as per law as it is a settled principle that amount of compensation must commensurate with the proportion of the reputation and the stature of a person in society and extent of injury to the said reputation.
11. It was further submitted that the appellant had been the President of Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, a member of SGPC for more than two decades, a member of Executive Committee, General Secretary, Senior Vice President and Chairman of Administrative Reforms First Appeal No. 344 of 2012 Page 4 of 5 Committee of SGPC and also had been a Chairman/President of World Sikh Council. It was, therefore, submitted that the compensation to the appellant on account of mental harassment and agony suffered at the hands of the respondents to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses and costs be awarded.
12. Submissions have been considered. Record has been perused.
13. There is absolutely no doubt that the workers of the Contractor, who visited the premises of the appellant on 30.5.2010 for shifting the meter, mishandled the meter and in the process the Block of the meter got melted. When the Flying Squad of the respondents visited the premises on 20.8.2010, the supply of the appellant was found direct and a case of theft of electricity was declared, and a provisional notice dated 22.9.2010 was issued in which the appellant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 41,867/-.
14. However, when the appellant filed objections, the case of the appellant was considered by the Disputes Settlement Committee and the matter was got investigated, it was found that there was no fault on the part of the appellant and hence the amount of the notice issued to the appellant was ordered to be recovered from the Contractor, whose employees visited the premises at the time of shifting the meter. When the appellant filed complaint against the employees of the Contractor, the matter was got investigated by the Senior Executive Engineer, Technical Audit who also fond that the appellant was innocent.
15. During the inspection by the Flying Squad on 20.8.2010, the supply of the appellant was found to be direct. It was prima facie a case of theft of electricity. However, provisional assessment notice issued to the appellant was withdrawn on the representation of the appellant. Neither the electric connection of the appellant was disconnected nor any amount was recovered from him. No F.I.R. was lodged. Evidently there was a lapse on First Appeal No. 344 of 2012 Page 5 of 5 the part of the J.E. who failed to seal the meter after shifting. No doubt a false case of theft of electricity was made out against the appellant which caused harassment to the appellant but no disconnection of the connection or any recovery of the amount was actually made. Moreover, the respondents redressed the grievance of the appellant promptly even prior to the filing the complaint before the District Forum. Apart from the misbehaviour of the workers of the Contractor, no ill-will against any other person is alleged and case of theft of electricity does not seem to be made out deliberately or with malafide intentions by the respondents. Therefore, the compensation allowed by the District Forum is held to be justified and reasonable and the same is found to be in commensurate with the lapses committed by the workers of the Contractor.
16. In view of the above findings and discussions, we find no merit in the present appeal and no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned District Forum and the same is dismissed in limine.
17. The arguments were heard on 16.7.2012 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER July 18, 2012 VINAY