State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Davinder Kumar vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 16 August, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.248 of 2004
Date of institution : 5.3.2004
Date of decision : 16.8.2010
Davinder Kumar son of Shri Tilak Raj, resident of Gali No.2, Bhagtanwala,
Amritsar, tenant in respect of a shed and shop situated at Dhapai Road, near
Railway Crossing, Amritsar.
.......Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman service through the SDO,
PSEB, Islamabad Sub Division, Amritsar.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 18.12.2003 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Amritsar.
Before :-
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh, Presiding Member.
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri Adarsh Malik, Advocate. INDERJIT KAUSHIK, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the complainant appellant against the impugned order dated 18.12.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum").
2. Facts as are made out from the complaint filed by the appellant before the learned District Forum are that the appellant took on rent one shed-cum-shop from its owner Shri Diwan Chand along with a running electric connection installed in the said premises bearing account No.IB-86/0556 and the appellant is user and consumer of the electricity being the beneficiary of services and is covered in the definition of a consumer as given under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in First Appeal No.248 of 2004. 2 short "the Act"). The appellant initially started the work of running power looms by way of self-employment for earning his livelihood in the rented premises but there being slump in the cloth market almost all the units in the city of Amritsar were closed down and the appellant also gave up his said vocation in the year (left blank). No work was carried out in the said shop but the appellant was paying the monthly minimum charges of the electricity of the electric connection and later the appellant installed a small atta chakki in the said shop and started running it and it became operational about a year ago and in the intervening period i.e. from the dae of closure of power looms till the installation and operation of atta chakki the appellant kept on paying monthly minimum charges to the respondents.
3. The said electric connection is of the sanctioned load capacity of 10.15 KWs and is a SP category connection which consisted of 2 separate electric meters one for three-phase power meter the sanctioned load of which is 8.950 KW and the other one with the sanctioned load of 1.200 KW. The SP category connection was subject to periodical and regular inspections by various officials of the respondents and during all such inspections the meter was found to be in perfect condition and the seals fixed on the MCB (Meter box) were found to be in order and were intact. The meter installed in the premises of the appellant was quite old and the three-phase meter was an old and repaired meter at the time it was provided. The three-phase electric meter installed in the premises of the appellant became defective about six months ago and only the right hand side first digit of the meter was moving upward and all other four digits of the meter got jammed and the appellant informed the respondents and their officials about the same.
4. On the oral information given by the appellant to the respondents regarding jammed digits of the meter, Junior Engineer of the respondents visited the premises of the appellant on 30.11.2002 and verified the condition of the meter equipment and the seals on the meter box and the same were found intact and the meter glass was also found intact and the connected load was also found within the sanctioned limits of the load and the report clearly shows that the meters installed First Appeal No.248 of 2004. 3 were quite old and the M.E. seals fixed were reported to be rusted and the appellant had no access to tamper with the same. As per the report of the Junior Engineer the three phase meter was removed and replaced by another meter in the month of December 2002 and at the time of removal of the meter seals were found intact and in order.
5. The appellant was asked to come present in the M.E. Lab. on 8.1.2003 and when the appellant reached M.E. Lab. the J.E. did not turn up and the appellant came back and he was again issued another notice to be present in the M.E. Lab. on 15.1.2003 and the appellant made himself available in the M.E. Lab. on 15.1.2003 for the purpose of checking of the meter. SDO, M.E. Lab. after having a cursory look at the meter directed his assistant to prepare the report of theft of energy and SDO signed the report so prepared and the appellant raised the protest but the officials of the M.E. Lab. refused to accede to his request and the appellant before signing the report specifically mentioned "I do not agree with the report". Later on the electric connection of the appellant was disconnected on 20.1.2003 without issuing any notice and asked the appellant to deposit Rs.17,993/- by way of penalty for theft of energy. Rs.1,500/- were claimed as load surcharge although it was not so mentioned in the report dated 30.11.2002. The appellant paid the amount of Rs.17,993/- to the respondents under protest and the acts of the respondents are illegal and payment made thereby is liable to be set aside. The allegations of theft are not tenable. The appellant had no access to the meter in any manner and there was no question of tampering with the same by the appellant and on the basis of the false report a penalty was imposed and sought a direction to the respondents to refund the deposited amount of Rs.17,993/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs to the tune of Rs.2,500/-.
6. The respondents filed the reply taking objections that the appellant is not a consumer as defined under the Act and the appellant was to approach the District Disputes Settlement Committee and he has not exhausted the remedy provided and First Appeal No.248 of 2004. 4 the connection of the appellant is a commercial connection and the complaint is not maintainable. On merits it was admitted that one industrial electric connection bearing No.IB-IB86/0556 with the sanctioned load of 10.15 KW (3 phase 8.950 and Single Phase 1.200 K.W.) is installed in the name of Shri N.K. Seth in the shed situated at Dhapai Road, Near Railway Crossing, Amritsar. The appellant is not a consumer. As per the rules of the respondents if any consumer takes industrial supply and changes his industry even then the connected load remains the same and he has to get approval from the Board and a consumer on the basis of a particular type of industry cannot be allowed to change the industry without the specific approval of the C.E. and the connected load remains same. Unauthorised change in the industry may entail dis-connection. It was admitted that the sanctioned load was of SP category and it does not make any difference if the meter is old one or properly repaired one till it is functioning in order. J.E. of the respondents inspected the meter on 30.11.2002 and found that all the digits of the meter were jammed except the last digit on the right-hand side of the meter, rusting of the M.E. seals which can be because of moisture does not effect in any way the functioning of the meter. It was also admitted that the consumer was requested to attend the meter examination on 8.1.2003 but he failed to come present and he again was sent another letter to come present on 15.1.2003 and the meter was examined in his presence by SDO, M.E. Lab. where Shri Joginder Singh, Additional Superintending Engineer (Enforcement-II) and Shri Ved Parkash, J.E. were also present and on examination of the meter it was found that on the upper side of the glass some adhesive has been filled. On the internal examination of the meter it was detected that the internal side of the meter cover at the place of which from the outer side some adhesive was found filled, there were scratches and similarly scratches were found on the upper side of the disc which proves that the consumer through some foreign material had been reaching inside to suppress the meter reading and it was a theft case. The appellant instead of admitting the true facts with mala fide intention gave some false remarks on the First Appeal No.248 of 2004. 5 said M.E. Lab. report. It was further stated that the consumer was served with the notice dated 17.1.2003 to make the payment of Rs.17,993/- and the connection was disconnected on 20.1.2003 when he refused to make the payment and the payment of Rs.17,993/- on account of theft is fully justified and is in accordance with rules and consumer is bound to pay the same. The appellant had been interfering with the meter and there is no deficiency in service. The complaint is false and prayed that the complaint be dismissed and the respondents be awarded Rs.25,000/- towards damages and compensation for filing a false complaint and Rs.5,000/- for contesting the false complaint.
7. The parties led their evidence and after hearing their counsels learned District Forum observed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the appellant was committing theft of electric energy and dismissed the complaint.
8. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.12.2003 the appellant filed the present appeal before this Commission.
9. Heard.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of the learned District Forum on the ground that the learned District Forum has wrongly relied upon the M.E. Lab. report because it was although signed by the appellant but he had signed it under protest and wrote in his own hand that he did not agree with the report. The seals of the meter were found intact at the time of inspection of the Junior Engineer and there was no occasion for the appellant to put any adhesive substance inside the meter and as such it was not a case of theft and the report is fabricated.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the meter was checked in the presence of the appellant and adhesive was found inside the meter which jammed the four digits of the meter and the M.E. Lab. has given the correct report and it was a case of clearcut theft as consumption sometimes First Appeal No.248 of 2004. 6 was almost nil whereas the appellant was running the power looms and thereafter Atta Chakki.
12. Perusal of consumption statement Ex.R-8 shows that from 8/2000 to March/2001 the meter in question showed the consumption of 689 units, 740 units, 884 units, 674 units, 431 units, 384 units, 234 units and 376 units. This evidence is contrary to the stand taken by the appellant that during the period 2000-2001 his power loom business had come to a standstill and no other work was being carried out. Likewise in months of March,2002 and April 2002 the consumption shown by the meter was 1077 units and 1026 units respectively whereas in the months of June 2002, July 2002 and August 2002 the consumption recorded was 9 units, 0 unit, 0 unit and 23 units. Thus it clearly shows that the meter was not functioning properly and non-recording of the consumption during this period when the appellant was running atta chakki corroborates the report of the M.E. Lab. that by putting adhesive material inside the electric meter in question the digits which were to show the consumption were jammed. The adhesive could not have entered the glass of the meter without the human act and the checking of the meter by the M.E. Lab. was done in the presence of the appellant and finding that the report is against his interest he signed under protest by writing that he does not agree with the report. The agreeing or not agreeing of the appellant with the report does not make the report of the M.E. Lab. false. There is no enmity or ill- will of the SDO, Incharge, M.E. Lab. with the appellant nor the appellant has brought on record any such evidence that the officials of the PSEB were inimical to him. Therefore the conclusion drawn by the learned District Forum that the appellant was committing theft of electric energy by tampering with the meter by way of putting adhesive material inside the meter and jammed four digits is correct and there is no reason or ground to interfere with the same.
13. Therefore the appeal being without any merit is dismissed.
14. The arguments in this case were heard on 10.8.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
First Appeal No.248 of 2004. 7
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH)
PRESIDING MEMBER
August 16 , 2010 (INDERJIT KAUSHIK)
Bansal MEMBER