State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Balraj Singh Son Of Labh Singh, vs Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub ... on 16 February, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.961 of 2005
Date of institution:25.07.2005
Date of Decision : 16.02.2011
Balraj Singh son of Labh Singh, resident of Village Shanker, Tehsil
Dehlon, District Ludhiana.
........Appellant.
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Sarinh through
Executive Engineer.
........Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
09.06.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : None
For the respondent : Ms.Sonal Dutta, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by complainant (in short 'the appellant') Balraj Singh against the order dated 09.06.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(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 appellant had filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as 'Act') and pleaded that appellant had an electric connection bearing account No.SP01/0080 in the name of his father late Sh.Labh Singh. After the death of his father on 14.10.2003, the First Appeal No.961 of 2005 2 appellant alone was using this connection for running small atta chakki in order to earn his livelihood. Appellant pleaded that respondent raised a illegal demand of Rs.19,755/-as sundry charges vide bill dated 26.6.2004 without any detail on the basis of the report of ME Lab, which was also illegal as the mater was not packed and sealed and no signature of the appellant was obtained. No notice was received by the appellant nor any authorization letter was given to anybody to accept the notice or to attend the M.E.Lab. The appellant apprised with the facts that two seals were missing and the glass was Ok. The matter was atleast 20 years old and the meter reader, in its routine checking, never pointed out regarding the missing of seals. Appellant was compelled to deposit this amount or to face disconnection of the electric connection. In such circumstances, appellant prayed that the demand of Rs.19755/- may be quashed, deposited amount may be refunded alongwith interest @ 18% till realization. The respondent may also be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as for causing tension and harassment alongwith Rs.3,500/- towards cost of legal expenses to the appellant.
3. On notice, the respondent had appeared and filed his written reply and raised certain preliminary objections that appellant had not come with clean hands. The true facts were that the meter was in the name of Labh Singh, which was changed vide MCO No. 87/51065 dated 4.3.2003 and it was got checked from the M.E. Lab, Ludhiana on 13.5.2004, it was found that two M.E.Seals were missing and one seal was found broken. Scratches were found on the disc and slit of the meter. It was found a case of theft of energy. After overhauling the account, an amount of Rs.19,755/- was found recoverable from Labh Singh, as such, a notice/memo no.1012 dated 21.5.2004 was sent to First Appeal No.961 of 2005 3 him to deposit the said amount. It was further pleaded that the appellant had not got the electric connection transferred in his name and had not submitted fresh A&A Form. As such, there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent board. He had no locus standi to file this complaint. Appellant also did not submit the "No Objection Certificate" from the other legal heirs of Sh.Labh Singh. It was denied that the connection was being used for earning livelihood. Still further, the meter was changed in his presence and appellant himself being the son and representative of Labh Singh, gave consent letter that he had no objection if the changed meter was got checked in his absence from the M.E. Lab.. It was further denied that the meter was not packed and sealed. All other assertions of the appellant had been denied by the respondents and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, dismissed the complaint.
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 respondent.
7. The appellant has filed the present appeal on the grounds that the order of the District Forum is based upon non-appreciation of the facts and evidence produced by the appellant. The District Forum had drawn wrong inferences about the facts as well as material law points. The dispute between the parties regarding the demand of Rs. 19,755/- which was raised by the respondent vide memo No. 1012 dated 21.5.2004 as theft charges.
First Appeal No.961 of 2005 4
8. The meter of the appellant was changed vide MCO No. 87/5/065 dated 4.3.2003(Annexure R-2) in the presence of appellant and the appellant signed the same in English. The appellant also gave his consent Ex. R-1 that the replaced old meter may be checked from the M.E. Lab and he will be bound by the findings of the inspection report.
9. The meter of the appellant was checked in the M.E. Lab on 13.5.2004 and as per the report of the M.E. Lab Annexure R-3 on inspection of the internal checking of the meter, it was found that two seals of the meter body were found missing and one seal was found broken. Scratches were also found on the disc and slit of the meter and the appellant was committing theft of energy by controlling the consumption of the meter. On the basis of the M.E. Lab report, demand of Rs. 19,755/- was raised vide memo No. 1012 dated 21.5.2004(Annexure R-5) but no objections were raised by the appellant. As such, the respondents proved that the appellant was committing theft of energy by tampering the seals of the meter.
10. The version of the appellant that no notice regarding the demand in dispute was raised and the amount was added in the bill dated 26.6.2004 is also not correct. The appellant has not denied his signatures on the MCO as well as on the consent letter Ex. Annexure R-1. It is also not the case of the appellant that the officials of the respondent obtained his signatures on the blank paper as well as on the blank MCO form.
11. It is also admitted case of the appellant that the meter was released and installed in the name of his father Lab Singh, who since had died on 14.10.2003 but he has not applied for the transfer of the First Appeal No.961 of 2005 5 electric connection in his name and had not submitted fresh A & A Form.
12. As per the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal of the appellant and the same is dismissed. The order of the District Forum is upheld. No order as to costs.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.02.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
February 16, 2011 (Piare Lal Garg)
As Lb Member