State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Subhash Chander Son Of Sh.Dev vs Assistant Executive Engineer (Aee) ... on 16 February, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.753 of 2005
Date of institution:19.05.2005
Date of Decision : 16.02.2011
Subhash Chander son of Sh.Dev resident of Village Bappiana, Teh.
& District Mansa.
........Appellant.
Versus
Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) Division, Punjab State Electricity
Board, Sub-Division, Bhikhi, Distt. Mansa.
........Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
12.04.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.S.C.Jindal, Advocate
For the respondent : Ms.Gagangeet Kaur, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER
M.A. No. 2858 of 2010 for restoration
The applicant has filed this application for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default vide order dated 08.09.2010. It was submitted that on 08.09.2010 the counsel for the appellant was stuck up before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court when the case was called for hearing. Due to this reason, he could not appear before this Hon'ble Commission. In fact the appellant used to come before this Hon'ble Court on all the hearings upto 8.9.2010. But he could not come present on 8.9.2010 as he had gone to Bathinda for the treatment of his ailing wife. As such, non appearance of the counsel is neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to the above mentioned First Appeal No.753 of 2005 2 reason. It was prayed that the application may be allowed and the appeal may be restored at its original number. The application is supported with an affidavit of the counsel for the appellant.
2. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case "New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. S. Srinivasan", 2000(1) CLT-414(SC), in Para No. 18, observed as follows:-
"18. We only intend to invoke the spirit of the principle behind the above dictum in support of our view that every court or judicial body or authority which has a duty to decide a lis between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on behalf of the complainant who had instituted the proceedings. That is not the function of the court or, for that matter, of judicial or quasi-judicial body. In the absence of the complainant, therefore, the court will be well within its jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. So also, it would have the inherent power and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on good cause being shown for the non-appearance of the complainant."
3. In view of the above preposition of the law, the application is allowed and the appeal dismissed in default on 08.9.2010, is restored. The registry is directed to restore the appeal at its original number.
First Appeal No.753 of 2005 3Main Case
4. Brief facts of the case are that meter account No.BP64- 0043 was installed at the premises of the appellant for running his Atta Chakki, Cotton Wool Carding Machine; hand ginning and rice shelling machine for earning his livelihood. The bills of the consumption were being paid by the appellant regularly to the respondent. Appellant had further alleged that on 1.3.2004, his electric meter got burnt and he brought this fact to the notice of the respondent within no time and appellant had also deposited Rs.1250/- with the respondent. The respondent had issued a MCO for the checking of burnt meter and marked to Rajveer Singh, ALM for the execution of the same. Rajveer Singh connected the direct supply to the appellant after disconnecting the supply from the burnt meter. Appellant had further alleged that on 26.4.2004, an employee of the respondent Board, namely, Karnail Singh came alongwith the other staff and removed the burnt meter and replaced it with a new meter and packed the old meter in a card board box and further asked the appellant to come present at Bathinda on 04.10.2004 for the checking of the burnt meter from the ME Lab. On 04.10.2004, the appellant was told that his electric meter could not be checked and rather obtained his signatures on certain papers and forms in the presence of Sh.Birbal Dass, J.E. posted at Bhikhi. Appellant had further alleged that vide notice bearing No.2252 dated 10.10.2004 he was directed by the respondent to deposit Rs.20,907/- on account of theft charges. The notice of the respondent was illegal and arbitrary and the appellant was not at all liable to pay because the appellant had never committed theft of energy. While alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the appellant had prayed for restraining the respondent from disconnecting his electric First Appeal No.753 of 2005 4 connection and withdrawing the impugned notice. Apart from the above, the appellant had also prayed Rs.7000/- as compensation and costs.
5. Respondent appeared and filed written version wherein it had taken certain legal objections to the effect that the appellant had obtained the electric connection for commercial purposes; the Hon'ble Forum had got no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint, the electric meter of the appellant was changed on the request of the appellant himself vide application dated 26.4.2004 and the electric meter was removed and packed and sealed in the card board box in the presence of the appellant. A new meter was installed at the spot. The old meter was sent to the M.E. Laboratory on 04.10.2004 in the same condition for its testing and simultaneously the appellant was informed about the same. The appellant was very much present at the time of checking of the electric meter in the M.E.Laboratory on 4.10.2004. On checking of the meter in M.E.Lab, it was found that the M.E.Seals and the body of the meter was tampered with and the appellant was committing theft of energy. The demand of the respondent was correct and the appellant was bound to pay the same.
6. On merits, it was admitted that the appellant had got released an electric connection, but he was not a consumer under the respondent. It was further submitted that the electric meter of the appellant got burnt on 1.3.2004. The meter was changed. The appellant had deposited Rs.1250/- as price of the meter requested for the change of burnt meter. Due to non-availability of the meter, the direct supply was restored to the appellant temporarily. The appellant was bound to pay the amount of the notice dated 11.2.2004 in dispute as theft charges. The appellant had signed the checking report of ME First Appeal No.753 of 2005 5 Lab after admitting the same to be correct. While denying and controverting other allegations in the complaint, the respondent had prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.500/- which was to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.
8. Hence, the appeal.
9. 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.
10. The disputes between the parties are whether the appellant comes under the definition of 'consumer' or whether he is liable to pay the demand of Rs. 20,970/- as theft charges to the respondent or not?
11. The version of the appellant is that he had obtained the connection of the electricity for his Atta Chakki from the respondent to earn his livelihood. The findings of the District Forum is not correct as the appellant pleaded that he had run his business to earn his livelihood, as such, we hold that the appellant is 'consumer' of the respondent.
12. There is no dispute that the meter of the appellant was burnt on 1.3.2004 and he immediately brought this fact in the notice of the respondent and also deposited Rs. 1,250/- as price of the new meter.
13. The meter of the appellant was replaced by the respondent vide MCO dated 1.3.2004 on 26.4.2004 in the presence of the appellant and the appellant signed the same after admitting the particulars of the First Appeal No.753 of 2005 6 MCO to be correct. The same is tendered by the respondent as Ex. OP-1.
14. The meter of the appellant was checked in the M.E. Lab in the presence of appellant and it was found during inspection of the meter that the appellant had tampered the M.E. Seals and opened the body of the meter and the same was re-fixed with an adhesive. The appellant was controlling the consumption of the meter illegally by tampering the seals of the meter and was committing theft of energy. The report of the M.E. Lab is Ex. OP-5, which was signed by the appellant after admitting the same to be correct.
15. In his complaint it is admitted by the appellant himself that he had gone to the M.E. Lab, Bathinda on 4.10.2004 where Sh. Birbal Dass, J.E. of the respondent was also present but the meter was not checked on that date, but the officials of the respondent obtained his signatures on the blank papers and the meter was not checked in his presence. The appellant had signed the report of the M.E. Lab in English, as such, it is proved that he was not an illiterate person so the version of the appellant is not believable that he had signed the blank forms on the asking of the officials of the respondent.
16. In view of the above discussion, we are of the affirmed view that the meter of the appellant was checked as per rules, regulations and circulars of the Board and it was found that the appellant was committing theft of energy by tampering the M.E. Seals as well as body of the meter and as such, he is liable to pay the theft charges of Rs. 20,970/- as per the demand of the respondent. First Appeal No.753 of 2005 7
17. The appeal of the appellant being without any merit is dismissed and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
18. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 03.02.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 250/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 250/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
20. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
21. 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