State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anita Gupta Wife Of Sh. Naresh Gupta vs Punjab State Electricity Board Through ... on 11 November, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1322 of 2007
Date of institution : 1.10.2007
Date of Decision : 11.11.2011
Anita Gupta wife of Sh. Naresh Gupta, resident of 29, S.F., HIG Flats, Jhansi
Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Civil Lines, U-III through
its XEN/SDO.
3. The Addl. XEN, City Western Division (Special), Punjab State
Electricity Board, Ludhiana.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 3.9.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sunil Chadha, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. B.S. Taunque, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant-Anita Gupta (hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 3.9.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that electric connection No. CF 74/0091 bearing meter No. 971002 was released and installed in the name of Ranjit Kaur, earlier owner of the house of the appellant. The appellant's father-in-law had purchased the said flat from Ranjit Kaur vide power of attorney dated 2.5.1998 and the appellant alongwith her family First Appeal No. 1322 of 2007 2 members are using the said electric connection. It was pleaded that on 10.7.2006, the officials of the respondents came to the premises of the appellant and told that her electric meter was running slow and the connected load was excess than the sanctioned load and removed the old meter by installing a new meter. The same was neither packed in a card board box nor sealed the same in her presence. After some time, the appellant had received notice dated 12.7.2006 of Rs. 1,41,456/- on the grounds that the appellant was using excess load than the sanctioned limit, meter was running slow and M.E. seals were tampered. Thereafter, the appellant visited the office of the respondents and requested them to withdraw the demand in dispute as she never used the excess load nor tempered the seals of the meter but of no use. It was further alleged that the meter in dispute was not checked in her presence in the M.E. Lab. It was pleaded that the demand was not genuine. Complaint was filed on the ground that the respondents were deficient in service and prayed that the respondents may be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs. 1,14,456/- and also prayed for compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
3. Upon notice, the respondents replied by taking preliminary objections that the appellant had concealed the true facts before the District Forum, appellant has no locus-standi to file the complaint. On merits, it was pleaded that electric connection No. CF 74/0091 was checked by Sh. C.S. Brar, AEE(T), Unit-I, City West Division, Ludhiana alongwith Sh. Inderpal Singh, Meter Inspector on 10.7.2006 vide LCR No. 7749 in the presence of Sh. Raj Kumar. The checking report was prepared at the spot and Sh. Raj Kumar signed the checking report after admitting the same to be correct. During checking, connected load of the appellant was found as 10.140 K.W. against the sanctioned load of 6 K.W., the consumer was committing theft of energy by tampering M.E. seals of the First Appeal No. 1322 of 2007 3 meter and cutting the wires of the M.E. Seals, which were found re-affixed. The meter was also checked with E.R.S. equipment and the same was found recording less energy to the tune of 76.4%. Thereafter, account of the appellant was overhauled and the demand of Rs. 1,41,456/- was raised vide notice dated 12.7.2006. The consumer did not deposit the abovesaid amount, rather the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum. On the directions of the District Forum, she deposited Rs. 56,582/- vide receipt dated 1.9.2006 and the remaining amount was outstanding against her. The demand was legally raised and the appellant is liable to pay the same. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
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 respondents.
7. The appellant has filed the appeal on the grounds that the pleaded case of the respondents was that the meter of the appellant was checked in the presence of Raj Kumar but no person in the name of Raj Kumar is residing in her family nor any person in the said name was nominated as representative by the appellant, the meter was not sent to the M.E. Lab for its testing and as per Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, the respondents were entitled to charge the amount for slow running of the meter only for six months, as such, the demand raised by the respondents was illegal.
First Appeal No. 1322 of 2007 4
8. The demand of Rs. 1,41,456/- was raised by respondent No. 2 on the basis of checking report dated 10.7.2006 conducted in the presence of Sh. Raj Kumar, representative of the consumer.
9. The version of the appellant is that no person in the name of Raj Kumar was residing in her family and no person, namely, Raj Kumar was authorized by her to sign the checking report as her representative. However, to prove this fact she also tendered into evidence copy of the ration card Ex. C-2 and in the list of family members no person in the name of Raj Kumar is mentioned in the ration card. But on the other hand, it is the admitted case of the appellant that the meter was removed by the officials of the respondents in her presence, who told her that the meter was running slow and the connected load was excess than the sanctioned load. No allegations were leveled by the appellant against the said officials that they had made the wrong checking report for some consideration. On the other hand, the respondents had tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh. C.S. Brar, A.E.E. (T) who checked the meter of the consumer and the affidavit of Sh. Inderpal Singh, Meter Inspector, who was also present at the spot when the meter was checked and removed.
10. So from the evidence produced by the respondents, it is proved beyond doubt that the checking officials had prepared the correct checking report at the spot.
11. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the electric connection was released in the name of one Ranjit Kaur, who was the owner of the flat where the said electric connection was installed and running but no authority letter was annexed with the complaint by the appellant that she was authorized by her to file the complaint on her behalf. In support of his version, he has cited the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission titled as "Hari Prasad versus First Appeal No. 1322 of 2007 5 MU.H.B.V.N.L. Panchkula & Ors.", I(2010) CPJ 104 (NC) wherein in paras No. 7, 8, 9 & 10 held as follows:-
"7. ........In order to fall within the ambit of consumer the beneficiary must avail the services with the approval of the consumer namely the first mentioned person.
8. Except for of bare averments of the complainant that he is beneficiary of the said connection, there is no other material to sustain his claim. The complainant did not get connection transferred in his name in the records of the respondents and, therefore, the complainant cannot be treated as beneficiary of the services provided by the OP/respondent. In fact, this litigation appears to be proxy litigation on behalf of Anil Garg in whose name the electric connection has been issued. The Vigilance Department of the respondent during checking had found that not only the meter was running slow by 80% but also the connected load was 9.826 KV as against sanctioned load of 5.8 KV. The inspection was done in the presence of Abhishek s/o Harish Garg nephew of Anil Garg. The meter was sent to M and T Lab. and notices were sent to the consumer, Anil Garg twice for remaining present in M and T Lab, but he failed to turn up. The respondents had, therefore, overhauled the account for six months on account of slow running of the meter.
9. The State Commission on the basis of material on record had rightly come to the conclusion that the complainant was not a consumer of services provided by the OP since the electric connection was in the name of Anil Kumar Garg. Instead of Anil Kumar Garg seeking remedy in respect of the connection in his name, the litigation has been initiated through proxy complainant Hari Prasad @ Harish Kumar Aggarwal who cannot be considered to be a consumer of the respondent. If the litigation had been filed by Anil Kumar, he would find it difficult to meet the case of the OP and, as such, resort in this case has been taken to proxy litigation who could deny everything.First Appeal No. 1322 of 2007 6
10. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this revision and the revision is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by the complainant-litigant to the OP."
12. The only version of the appellant is that she was using the electric connection, as such, being the beneficiary user of the electric connection, she falls within the definition of 'consumer', as such, the complaint was filed by her.
13. The appellant had tendered into evidence photocopies of Ration Card Ex. C-2, her PAN Card Ex. C-3 and telephone bill Ex. C-4, which are issued in the name of the appellant and address in the same is given as Flat No. 29, Second Floor, HIG Flats, Rani Jhansi Enclave, Civil Lines, Ludhiana where the electric connection in dispute was running. So from these documents, it is proved beyond doubt that the electric connection was being used by the appellant and she was the 'consumer' of the respondents as beneficiary user of the same as per definition given in Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the above authority cited by the counsel for the respondents, are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
14. The version of the appellant that the meter was not got checked from the M.E. Lab, as such, the demand raised by the respondents was illegal; is also not correct. As per the checking report, the load was checked at the spot, the details of the same is mentioned in the checking report, seals were also found tampered at the spot during checking and the working of the meter was also checked at the spot with the E.R.S. equipment and the running of the meter was found less as 76.4% at the spot, as such, there was no requirement to get the meter checked from the M.E. Lab.
First Appeal No. 1322 of 2007 7
15. The account of the appellant was overhauled for one year against Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act. As per Section 26(6), the demand/account of the 'consumer' can not be overhauled exceeding six months. As such, we are of the view that the demand of the respondents in dispute by overhauling the account of the appellant for one year is not genuine and we quash the same.
16. We have perused the calculation details Ex. R-2. But it is not mentioned in the same under which circular, the account of the appellant was overhauled. Even no affidavit of the Auditor/official, who had overhauled the account of the appellant, is tendered into evidence by the respondents.
17. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is partly accepted and the order under appeal is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted.
18. The respondents are directed to overhaul the account of the appellant/consumer as per the Circulars, which were applicable for using the excess load, theft of energy and slow running of the meter only for six months prior to the checking of the meter.
19. If it is found that the appellant had deposited excess amount then the amount, which comes recoverable from her after overhauling the account of the appellant, the same will be refunded to the appellant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till refund. If the amount deposited by the appellant is found less, then the appellant will deposit the same within one month with the respondents from the receipt of the fresh demand.
20. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 1.11.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No. 1322 of 2007 8
21. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
November 11, 2011. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member