State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Duni Chand Son Of Kishori Lal vs Sub Divisional Officer, P.S.E.B., on 30 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1311 of 2003
Date of institution :01.10.2003
Date of Decision : 30.10.2009
Duni Chand son of Kishori Lal, R/o 522 Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda.
........Appellant.
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer, P.S.E.B., City Sub Division, Bathinda.
........Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 12.9.2003
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal, President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Mr. Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.R.C.Gupta, Advocate For the respondent : None PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by Duni Chand (in short 'the appellant') against the order dated 12.9.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that electricity connection bearing No.AR-30-0770 had been installed at the residence of the appellant and he had been paying the bills regularly, so issued by the respondent against consumption. Respondent demanded Rs.27,620/- from the appellant vide memo No.432 dated 19.2.2003 on the basis that meter of the appellant was checked in M.E. Lab and seals of the meter were found tampered with meaning thereby that appellant was indulging theft of energy. The appellant never indulged in theft of energy and the memo demanding Rs.27, 620/- on the basis of theft was without any First Appeal No. 1311 of 2003 2 base. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to respondent to refund Rs.27620/- with interest from the date of deposit and also to pay to appellant compensation of Rs.10,000/- alongwith costs.
3. Respondents filed the reply and had contested the claim of the appellant on the ground that meter of the appellant was removed in the presence of the appellant and the same was packed in a card board box. The removed meter was sent to M.E.Lab and it was checked in M.E. Lab in the presence of the appellant. On checking in the M.E. Lab it was found that the glass of the meter was tampered with at Place 'A' in the sketch on M.E.Lab report dated 14.2.2003. The meter was checked from inside after breaking the seals and found that there were scratches on the disc and digital counter of the meter. Thus, it was a case of theft of energy and accordingly, a demand of Rs.27, 620/- was raised vide memo dated 19.2.2003 from the appellant.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, dismissed the complaint. The following is the operative part of the order:-
" So, keeping in view the facts of the case, this forum is of the view that there is serious dispute between the parties as to whether the meter of the complainant was checked in M.E. Lab in the presence of the complainant or not and as to whether signatures of the complainant were obtained on M.E. Lab Report when it was blank and M.E. Lab report was prepared later on or not. Before deciding this dispute first, complaint can not be decided on merits and to decide such like dispute between the parties, proper investigation and detailed evidence by way of examination and cross-examination of witnesses is required to be adduced by both the parties which is not possible in the summary First Appeal No. 1311 of 2003 3 proceedings as contemplated in Consumer Protection Act. Both the parties can adduce this elaborate evidence in civil court. So, the complaint is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek his remedy before the civil court. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost."
5. Hence, the appeal by the complainant/appellant.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. We have perused the order of the District Forum, facts of the complaint as well as evidence produced by both the parties. From the perusal of the above documents, we are of the view that there is no serious dispute between the parties, by which the District Forum was unable to decide the complaint on merits. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Punj Lloyd Limited versus Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd.", 2009 CTJ 1 (Supreme Court) (CP) that "every complaint of a consumer is related to a dispute and will raise disputed questions and contentions. If there was no dispute then there would be no complaint. Therefore, to reject a complaint that it raises disputed questions and contentions, is irrelevant and not justified".
8. So, in view of the above discussions and settled law, we decide the present appeal on merits.
9. The demand of Rs. 27,620/- was raised by the respondent from the appellant vide memo No. 432 dated 19.2.2003 as theft charges. The meter of the appellant was changed by the A.J.E. of the P.S.E.B. with new electronic meter vide MCO dated 14.1.2003(Ex. R-3) as per the policy of the P.S.E.B. to remove line looses, which was effected on First Appeal No. 1311 of 2003 4 1.2.2003 in the presence of the appellant and the appellant signed the M.C.O. after admitting the same to be correct.
9. As per the affidavit of Er. Manjit Singh, A.E., City Sub Divn., Bathinda, the meter was packed in a card board box in the presence of the appellant and the same was sent to the M.E. Lab.
10. The old meter which was replaced vide MCO dated 14.1.2003 and was sent to the M.E. Lab in the presence of the appellant vide challan No. 266 dated 14.2.2003 in the packed condition bearing seals No. 171/45, 46 for its checking. The meter of the appellant was checked in the M.E. Lab, Bathinda on 14.2.2003 in the presence of the appellant and it was observed in the M.E. Lab:-
"On outer checking of the meter it was found that the glass of the meter was tampered from place 'A' marked in the sketch on M.E. Lab report No. 39/12 dated 14.2.03. The meter was checked from inside after breaking the M.E. Seals and found that there were scratches on the disc and on 100th digit of the digital counter of the meter from which it is evident that by making approach in the meter through its window glass, the complainant was controlling the electric energy. It is found to be a case of theft of electric energy."
11. The appellant signed the checking report after admitting the same to be correct.
12. On the basis of the report of the M.E. Lab Ex. R-2, memo No. 432 dated 19.2.2003(Ex. C-2) was served upon the appellant to deposit Rs. 27,620/- as theft charges and the appellant deposited the same on 20.2.2003 vide Ex. C-4.
13. From the above discussion, we are of the view that the proper procedure as per the regulations of the Board was adopted by the First Appeal No. 1311 of 2003 5 respondent for the checking of the meter of the appellant in the M.E. Lab, Bathinda and from the M.E. Lab report it was proved that the appellant was committing theft of energy. As such, we hold that the appellant was liable to pay the amount in dispute to the respondent. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 26.10.2009 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal)
President
Lt. Col.Darshan Singh [Retd.])
Member
October 30, 2009 (Piare Lal Garg)
As/- Lb/- Member