State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Subhash Chander Puri vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 23 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 793 of 2003
Date of institution: 25.6.2003.
Date of decision : 23.11.2009.
Subhash Chander Puri, owner of Hotel International, Mall Road, Ferozepur City.
.....Appellant
Versus
1- Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Patiala.
2- Assistant Executive Engineer, Urban Sub Division, Punjab State
Electricity Board, Ferozepur.
.....Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 9.5.2003
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:
For the appellant : Sh. Vinod Khunger, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh.Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Subash Chander Puri appellant was having electric connection bearing account no.HT40/484 with which he was running the hotel. He was making the payment of electricity bills regularly. The electric meter was giving electric shocks on which the appellant informed the respondents immediately First Appeal No. 793 of 2003 2 with the request to replace the electric meter. Reminders were also sent to the respondents but in vain.
2- It was further pleaded that on 18.5.2002, some officials of the respondents came to the hotel of the appellant and checked the electric meter. It was giving electric shocks. The functioning of the electric meter was found to be normal. However, the respondents issued demand notice dated 31.5.2002 for an amount of Rs.29,185/- on the plea that the appellant was committing theft of electric energy. The said bill was wrong and illegal. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the respondents, the appellant filed the complaint against them in the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "District Forum"), for setting aside demand notice dated 31.5.2002 of an amount of Rs.29,185/-. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed. 3- The respondents filed written reply. It was admitted that the appellant was having electric connection bearing account no.HT40/484 under the non-residential category. It was admitted that on 18.5.2002, the meter reader of the respondents had checked the electric meter of the appellant in his presence but the appellant had refused to sign the checking report. On the basis of the checking report, the demand notice dated 31.5.2002 was sent to the appellant but he refused to accept the same. The demand was legal and valid. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4- In support of his case, the appellant filed his affidavit as Ex.C1. He also proved the documents as Ex.C2 and Ex.C3.
5- On the other hand, the respondents proved the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.They also filed the affidavit of Sh. Gurdev Singh, Meter Inspector as Ex.R5 and the M.E. Lab. Report as Ex.R6.
6- After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents placed on the file by them, the learned District Forum First Appeal No. 793 of 2003 3 dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 9.5.2003 with costs of Rs.1000/-.
7- Hence, the appeal. 8- The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the
appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 9.5.2003 be set aside, the demand notice dated 31.5.2002 be also set aside and that the appellant be awarded compensation, cost and interest.
9- On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there is no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
10- Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered. 11- Admittedly, Subhash Chander Puri appellant was having electric connection bearing account no.HT40/484 under the non-residential category. He was running the hotel with this electric connection. 12- The version of the appellant was that the electric meter was out of order. It was giving electric shocks and the appellant had sent a letter to the respondents either to repair the electric meter or to replace the same. A reminder was also sent on 13.5.2002. A copy of the reminder dated 13.5.2002 has been proved as Ex.C3. Therefore, it is proved that the electric meter of the appellant was not in order.
13- The respondents have taken the plea that the electric meter of the appellant was checked on 18.5.2002. The checking report has been proved as Ex.R2. It was checked in the presence of the appellant but the appellant had refused to sign the same. As per this checking report dated 18.5.2002 Ex.R2, the glass of three phase electric meter was fixed with araldite on its left side and on outside the meter, fixture compound was filled .The meter was found earth short. The terminal block and fixture components were also fixed for blocking First Appeal No. 793 of 2003 4 the meter to set right the block spot welding. Calculations were made and the appellant was required to deposit a sum of Rs.29,185/-. 14- The checking report dated 18.5.2002 Ex.R2 was supported by the affidavit of Gurdev Singh, Meter Inspector (Ex.R5). He had checked the electric meter.
15- The electric meter was sent to the M.E. Lab. It was tested in the M.E. Lab. on 9.12.2002 and it was found that both the M.E. seals of the right side were broken. The left side upper M.E. seal was found to be broken by rust. The outside of the meter was filled with mixing compound. The electric meter was tampered with by the consumer and it was found to be a case of theft of electric energy. The electric meter was tested in the presence of the appellant but he had refused to place his signatures on the test report. 16- However, the respondents have not filed any affidavit in support of the M.E. Lab. report.
17- Moreover, the demand notice was sent to the appellant on 31.5.2002 (Ex.R1) on the basis of the checking report dated 18.5.2002 Ex.R2 alone. The meter was tested in the M.E. Lab. on 9.12.2002 i.e. much after the demand notice sent by the respondents to the appellant. Therefore, the M.E. Lab. report was not made the basis by the respondents for issuing the demand notice. 18- At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents placed on file the data of consumption of electric energy to show that the consumption of electric energy was shown in the electric meter at low level which revealed that the consumer was committing theft of electric energy. 19- This submission has been considered. There are two faults in the version of the respondents. First is that the electric meter was defective. It was giving electric shocks even prior to the checking made by the officials of the respondents on 18.5.2002. The appellant had been sending letters of request to First Appeal No. 793 of 2003 5 the respondents to remove the defects in the electric meter. But it was not so done. Then the appellant had sent the reminder. The reminder has been proved as Ex.C3 which was duly received by the respondents on 13.5.2002 at diary no.1157. Therefore, it is clearly proved that the electric meter was defective even prior to the checking.
20- The checking was made by the officials of the respondents on 18.5.2002. This report also reveals that earth of the electric meter was short. This report dated 18.5.2002 of the respondents themselves clearly reveals that there was defect in the electric meter installed in the premises of the appellant. 21- Moreover, this report dated 18.5.2002 Ex.R2 does not say in so many words if the consumer was committing theft of electric energy. It only says that there was araldite fixed on the glass of three phase meter and the fixing compound was filled. It may be so because of the defect in the meter, the consumer tried to stop the falling down of the glass of the meter. Moreover, M.E. Lab. report Ex.R6 reveals that the upper part of left side of the electric meter was consumed by rust. Therefore, it may the reason which constrained the consumer to fix the araldite with the glass.
22- So far as the M.E.Lab. report dated 9.12.2002 Ex.R2 is concerned, it has not been made the basis for issuance of the demand notice. Moreover, it stops merely by saying that the seals were tampered with and the glass was fixed with araldite or that outside the meter, fixing compound was filled. It does not say if the meter was recording less consumption or if the figures were reversed by any other method by which the consumer was allegedly committing theft of electric energy or that there were scratches on the digits of the electric meter. Therefore, the M.E. Lab. Report dated 9.12.2002 cannot be made the basis for the demand notice dated 31.5.2002.
First Appeal No. 793 of 2003 623- At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has placed on the file the consumption chart for the year 2001, 2002 and 2003 month-wise. Even as per this chart, the consumption for the year 2002 was more in May, September and November, 2002 than the consumption shown in the year 2001. It was less in January and July and almost parallel in March. It is reproduced as under:-
Consumption Data of A/C No.46/484, CM Sub Division SL-15-28 Category NRS -M23 Sr. No. Month 2001 2002 2003 1 January 580 O.K. 114 O.K. 865 O.K. 2 March 540 O.K. 527 O.K. PDCO N 3 May 720 O.K. 1106 O.K. PDCO 4 July 1030 O.K. 702 O.K. -
5 September 678 O.K. 1409 X --
6 November 1001 O.K. 1639 O.K. 24- Therefore, this chart does not help the respondents to say if the appellant was committing theft of electricity energy.
25- Moreover, as per the checking report dated 18.5.2002 Ex.R2, only the glass of the three phase meter was fixed with araldite on the left side, while the fixing compound was filled. The meter was earth short. It was also stated in the report dated 18.5.2002 that the meter was tampered with. It was not mentioned anywhere in the report dated 18.5.2002 if the consumer was committing theft of electric energy. It has been recently held by this Commission First Appeal No. 793 of 2003 7 in the judgment dated 3.2.2009 recorded in First Appeal No.396 of 2002 titled as "P.S.E.B. & Others Vs M/s Sukhbir Singh & Company"that:-
"10. After perusing the checking report Ex.R3 and the affidavit of Engineer Surinder Pal Singh, A.E. (OP) Ex.R1, we only reach the conclusion that there was something wrong done with the seals of the electric meter but the meter was running alright. Only presumption has been drawn by the checking staff that since the seals were found broken, the meter reading could be controlled and the recording of consumption of electricity could be stopped in the electric meter. This alone does not amount to theft till it was proved by the appellants that recording of consumption of electricity was in fact stopped by the respondent. There is no document to prove that aspect of the case. Therefore, theft of electric energy is not proved".
26- The same view was taken by this Commission in the judgment reported as "The Sub Division Officer & Others Vs Niranjan Singh", 2003 (1)CLT-172 in which, it was held that where the glass of the electric meter was found broken, it was not enough to conclude that it was a case of theft of electric energy.
27- Therefore, in view of the facts of this case, commission of theft of energy is not proved.
28- Accordingly, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 9.5.2003 is set aside and the demand notice dated 31.5.2003 for Rs.29,185/- is also set aside.
29- The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.500/- in this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 25.6.2003. This amount of Rs.500/- along with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry First Appeal No. 793 of 2003 8 to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
30- The arguments in this case were heard on 12.11.2009 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. 31- 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 (Piare Lal Garg) Member November 23,2009.
(Gurmeet Singh)