State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board Through ... vs Mehar Singh Son Of Sh. Banta Singh on 21 July, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 242 of 2006
Date of institution : 10.2.2006
Date of Decision : 21.7.2011
1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2. The Additional Supdt. Engineer/Distribution, Distribution Division, Focal
Point (Special) P.S.E.B. Focal Point, Ludhiana.
....Appellants.
Versus
Mehar Singh son of Sh. Banta Singh aged 68 years resident of H. No. I, Gali No.
18, New Moti Nagar, Ludhiana.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 21.12.2005 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Ajaib Singh, Advocate
For the respondent : None.
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by appellants-PSEB (hereinafter called 'the appellants') against the order dated 21.12.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called 'the respondent') was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was using domestic electric connection No. IF 39/458 and paying the electricity bills regularly. Appellants sent memo dated 14.2.2005 and raised a demand of Rs. 50,489/- against checking dated 25.1.2005. Respondent contacted the appellants and requested them to give the break up of the charges levied in the memo but the appellant have not given any reply. Respondent was First Appeal No. 242 of 2006 2 asked to deposit the amount immediately. It was pleaded that no checking was done in his presence nor the meter was removed, packed or sealed in his presence. Neither any notice regarding the checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab was served nor the same was checked in his presence. Complaint was filed on the ground that the appellants were deficient in service and prayed that the appellant may please be directed to withdraw the memo dated 14.2.2005 of Rs. 50439/-, restrained from disconnecting his electric connection and to award compensation.
3. Appellants replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable. On merits, it was admitted that the old meter of the respondent was removed and new meter No. 5424220 was installed. The old meter No. 491362 was properly packed and sealed. The same was sent to the M.E. Lab for its checking/analysis. During the checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab, M.E. seals of the meter were found tampered. Neutral and counters wires were found disconnected. The meter was recording less consumption to the extent of 70%. On the basis of the checking report of the M.E. Lab, memo Ex. R-4 dated 14.2.2005 was served upon the respondent in which the demand of Rs. 50,489/- was raised after overhauling the account of the respondent from 10/2002 to 8/2004. It was pleaded that the demand was raised on the basis of the report of the M.E. Lab and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.
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. 50,489/- raised vide memo dated 14.2.2005. If any amount paid, the same be refunded with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment.
5. Hence, the appeal.
First Appeal No. 242 of 2006 3
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 appellants.
7. The appeal was filed by the appellants on the grounds that as per the checking report dated 27.10.2004, Charan Singh, Meter Inspector had found the glass of the meter in broken condition and was affixed with some adhesive material and it was a case of theft. Meter of the respondent was replaced vide MCO No. 80/59453 dated 28.7.2004 in the presence of Kamaljit Singh son of the respondent. Respondent was informed vide notice dated 10.12.2004 to come present in the M.E. Lab at Ludhiana on 14.12.2004 at 10.00 A.M. so that the meter could be checked in his presence. Notice was received by Kamaljit Singh son of the respondent but the respondent did not come in the M.E. Lab on the said date and he was again informed vide notice No. 1469 dated 17.12.2004 to come present in the M.E. Lab, Ludhiana on 21.12.2004, which was received by the respondent himself but he did not turn up. The respondent was finally informed vide notice No. 1535 dated 23.12.2004 to come present in the M.E. Lab, Ludhiana on 28.12.2004, which was received by Surinder Kaur, his wife but the respondent had failed to come present in the M.E. Lab, Ludhiana. As such, the meter was checked in the M.E. Lab on 25.1.2005 and it was found that the meter was running 70% slow and the M.E. seals were found tampered with but the District Forum had not considered these facts and passed the impugned order purely on conjectures and surmises, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
8. We have perused the reply filed by the appellants to the complaint filed by the respondent.
9. No date and name of the official is mentioned by the appellants in the reply. Even the appellants have not mentioned the date First Appeal No. 242 of 2006 4 when the MCO was effected by the officials of the appellants. It is also not mentioned in the reply that, who was present at the time of removal of the meter by the officials of the P.S.E.B. It is also not mentioned that any notice was served upon the respondent to come present at the time of checking of the meter before the M.E. Lab. Copies of the notices were not placed on file, which are alleged in the grounds of appeal were served upon the respondent by the appellants before the District Forum. No copy of the M.E. Lab report was also tendered into evidence by the appellants on the basis of which the demand in dispute was raised.
10. No affidavit of Charan Singh, Meter Inspector nor affidavit of any official, who effected the MCO was produced and tendered into evidence to prove the allegations leveled in the grounds of appeal.
11. As such, the above action of appellants is against the Circular No. 10 of 2001, which is reproduced as under:-
"Sub.: Packing of defective meters in sealed Card Board Boxes.
As per existing Commercial instructions issued vide C.C. No. 45/97 dated 17.12.97, all the meters removed against meter change order (MCO) are to be sent to M.E. Labs. in the sealed Card Board Box duly signed by the concerned PSEB Officers/Officials and the consumer or his representative. These instructions were further reiterated by CC No. 8/99 dated 2.2.99. Now the matter has been reviewed and decided that in future all the meters to be removed against any meter change order (MCO) shall be first checked by the concerned Junior Engineer and shall only be packed such meters where theft of energy is suspected, in card board boxes before effecting meter change order duly signed by concerned PSEB officer/official and the consumer or his representative.
The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case the consumer refuses to sign the meter test results/report, such meters shall be kept in the sealed box by the Operation S/Divn. till final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to First Appeal No. 242 of 2006 5 the Dispute Settlement Committee or Civil Courts, such sealed meter shall be returned to the M.E. Labs.
In case of those meters where theft of energy is not suspected by the Junior Engineer concerned these meters, shall be sent to M.E. Labs, without packing. Later on, if any theft of energy case is detected pertaining to these meters, then Junior Engineer concerned shall be held responsible."
12. Photostat copies of checking report dated 27.7.2004 by Charan Singh, Meter Inspector, MCO dated 28.7.2004, copies of notices dated 10.12.2004, 17.12.2004, 23.12.2004 and report of M.E. Lab dated 25.1.2005 were attached by the appellants with the appeal. Even no copy of notice was annexed nor produced by the appellant by which the respondent was informed by the appellants to come present on 25.1.2005 so that meter could be checked in his presence. It is mandatory on the part of the appellants that the meter should be checked in the presence of consumer or his representative and he has to be informed about the date and time of testing of the meter in the M.E. Lab.
13. The appellants had not pleaded the facts in the complaint which are mentioned in the grounds of appeal, as such, the same cannot be read now at the appeal stage.
14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. There is no merit in the appeal of the appellants and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000/-. The order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 11.7.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 12,623/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of First Appeal No. 242 of 2006 6 Rs. 12,623/- 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 appellants.
17. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
July 21, 2011. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member