State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Charan Singh(Deceased) on 11 October, 2010
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1382 of 2004
Date of institution : 9.11.2004
Date of Decision : 11.10.2010
Punjab State Electricity Board through Executive Engineer, Sub Division,
Pakhowal, Ludhiana.
....Appellant.
Versus
Charan Singh(deceased) s/o Gulzar Singh, Village Burj Littan, Distt. Ludhiana
now represented through his L.Rs impleaded vide order dated 26.8.2010:-
(i) Malkiat Kaur w/o Charan Singh
(ii) Sandeep Kumar D/o Charan Singh
(iii) Amandeep Kaur D/o Charan Singh
(iv) Kamaljeet Kaur D/o Charan Singh
(v) Harpreet Kaur D/o Charan Singh
(vi) Parshotam Singh S/o Charan Singh aged 15 year (minor) through
her mother Malkiat Kaur
All residents of Village Burj Littan, Distt. Ludhiana
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 10.9.2004 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate For the respondents : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the P.S.E.B.(in short, 'the appellant') against the order dated 10.9.2004 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(in short, the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of Charan Singh(in short, 'the respondent') was allowed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that electric connection No. SP-112 was installed in the name of Karnail Singh, from whom the respondent's First Appeal No. 1382 of 2004 2 father Gulzar Singh had purchased the property in 1987, where the abovesaid connection was running/installed. The account number was KA13/0397A. He was using the connection for running small Atta Chakki to earn his livelihood with the help of his family members. Appellant raised the demand of Rs. 27,866/- on the basis of report of M.E. Lab that M.E. Seals were found missing during the checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab, which was not correct. Appellant had violated their own rules and regulations at the time of execution of M.C.O. and the meter was neither sealed, packed nor signature of the deceased respondent or his family member was obtained. No notice regarding checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab was served. Appellant failed to establish that due to missing of seals, any type of theft was committed by the respondent. The act of the appellant amounts to deficiency in service and also causing harassment and financial burden. It was prayed that demand of Rs. 27,866/- be quashed and deposited amount be refunded alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Rs. 25,000/- was also prayed as compensation from the appellant.
3. Respondent replied by taking preliminary objections that the respondents have no locus-standi to file this complaint, as the connection stands in the name of Karnail Singh, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum. On merits, it was denied that there was any deficiency on the part of the appellant. The electric meter, which was installed in the premises of consumer Karnail Singh was changed as per instructions of the Board and new electronic meter was installed. Old meter was sent to M.E. Lab vide store challan dated 10.11.2003 and was tested there by Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement) and Senior Executive Engineer(M.E. Lab) in the presence of deceased respondent-Charan Singh. Late Sh. Charan Singh refused to sign the test report and a note to this effect was mentioned in the test report by the officer, who tested the First Appeal No. 1382 of 2004 3 meter in dispute in the M.E. Lab. It was reported that all the M.E. seals installed on the meter body were missing and the consumer was controlling the consumer/energy as per his own choice and it was a theft case. On the basis of M.E. Lab report, respondent was directed to pay Rs. 27,866/-, which was calculated on the basis of sanctioned load of 14.920 Kws. The demand in dispute was rightly raised as per terms and conditions and there was no deficiency on its part. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint and quashed the demand of Rs. 27,866/- and appellant was directed to refund the deposited amount with 12% per annum interest from the date of deposit till actual payment.
5. Hence, the appeal.
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 parties.
7. It is admitted case of the respondent that the meter of the respondent was replaced by the officials of the P.S.E.B. vide M.C.O. Ex. R-1 and he signed the same.
8. We have also perused the analysis/checking report of M.E. Lab Ex. R-2. It is mentioned in the checking report that the meter was received in the M.E. Lab vide challan No. 91 dated 10.11.2003 through Sh. Gulzar Singh, J.E., which was packed and sealed in a card board box and bears two paper seals signed by the consumer as well as by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, J.E., which were found intact. Meter was checked in the presence of Sh. Charan Singh and M.E. seals of the meter body were found missing during the checking of the meter and the respondent was controlling the consumption as per his own choice/wishes. It was a case of theft of First Appeal No. 1382 of 2004 4 electricity. The report was prepared at the spot in the presence of deceased Charan Singh but he refused to sign the same and note to this effect was also given by the Senior Executive Engineer in the checking report of the M.E. Lab(Ex. R-2).
9. It was mentioned in the reply by the appellant that the meter was checked in the M.E. Lab in the presence of deceased Charan Singh but no rebuttal to this effect was filed by the respondent. No evidence by way of affidavit was produced by the respondent to rebut the version of the appellant that the meter was tested in the M.E. Lab in the presence of deceased Charan Singh.
10. So the version of the respondent that the meter was not sealed and packed at the time of removal of the same vide M.C.O. Ex. R-1 and no notice regarding the checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab was served upon him; is not correct. The demand of the appellant was correct as the respondent himself pleaded in the complaint that due to missing of seals, no theft was committed by the respondent/complainant by unfair means and missing seals had no nexus with theft as the nature of theft was not established by any cogent evidence by the appellant.
11. So from the pleadings of the respondent himself, it was the admitted case of the respondent that the M.E. seals of the meter were missing.
12. The definition of the theft is given in Section 135 of The Electricity Act, 2003, which is reproduced below:-
"135. Theft of electricity.-(1) Whoever, dishonestly,--
(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or used a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or First Appeal No. 1382 of 2004 5 method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both:"
13. So from the definition of the theft, it is proved beyond doubt by the appellant that the respondent was committing theft of energy by tampering the M.E. Seals of the meter and as such, he was liable to pay the theft charges to the appellant and the demand of Rs. 27,866/- was rightly raised by the appellant vide memo No. 1238(Ex. R-3) dated 1.12.2003. No objections to this memo of demand were filed by the respondent with the appellant and deposited the amount in dispute with the appellant without any protest.
14. The order of the learned District Forum is against the facts and evidence produced on record by the appellant and as such, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 10.9.2004 of the District Forum is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs.
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 30.9.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 13,940/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs. 13,940/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to First Appeal No. 1382 of 2004 6 the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
October 11, 2010. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member