State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity ... vs Jatinder Kumar @ Satinder Kumar Son Of ... on 16 December, 2011
F.A. No. 1390 of 2006 1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
PLOT NO. 1037, SECTOR 37-A DAKSHAN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1390 of 2006
Date of institution : 06.11.2006
Date of decision : 16.12.2011
1. S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, Operation Sub Division, Urban, Dhuri.
2. P.S.E.B. through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.
...Appellants
Versus
Jatinder Kumar @ Satinder Kumar son of Sh. Sat Paul, resident of Gali No. A/183,
Opposite Markfed, Janta Nagar, Dhuri, District Sangrur.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 5.10.2006 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : None
For the respondent : None
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.10.2006 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "District Forum")in which the complaint of the respondent was allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Jatinder Kumar alias Satinder Kumar was having an electric connection bearing account No. MF-38/0491 of 7.96 K.W. in his house situated at Janta Nagar, Dhuri for domestic purpose. It was pleaded that on 17.2.2006, some junior officials of PSEB, Dhuri visited the house of the respondent in his absence for checking. After 2-3 days, same officials visited the house of the respondent in his absence and removed the meter and took it away. On knowing about the removal of the meter, the respondent visited the office of the appellant No. 1.He was surprised to know that a case of theft has been made out and a demand of Rs. 14,191/- was raised which was totally illegal, null and void against the law of natural justice. It was further pleaded that the respondent immediately approached appellant No. 1 and F.A. No. 1390 of 2006 2 requested to withdraw the illegal demand as he had never committed any theft. Neither the meter was removed in his presence nor the same was packed and sealed in a cardboard box and the said meter was also not checked in M.E. Lab in his presence.
3. It was further pleaded that the respondent received the bill dated 18.2.2006 on 28.2.2006 for Rs. 2050/- which was payable on 7.3.2006 but the respondents refused to receive this bill andrespondent was told by the appellant that his meter was checked again on 7.3.2006 and a new case of theft of electricity was made out against the respondent and a notice to that effect was being sent to the respondent for the payment of Rs. 36,342/- which included the previous unpaid amount of Rs. 14191/- pertaining to theft detected earlier. The respondent again requested the appellants to withdraw the alleged demand of Rs. 36,342/- raised vide notice No. 481 dated 9.3.2006, which was based on the checking done by the officials of PSEB on 7.3.2006. It was pleaded that the alleged checking by the J.E. dated 7.3.2006 was totally false, fictitious and a concocted story only to implicate the respondent in a false theft case. Hence the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the appellant to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs. 36342/- alongwith 18% interest. Compensation and litigation charges were also prayed.
4. Upon notice, the appellants filed the written statement in which it was pleaded that on the report of meter inspector dated 12.5.2005, MCO No. 125/60193 dated 16.5.2005 was issued and the same was effected on 27.7.2005. The removed meter No. 620318 was packed in cardboard box. The respondent was intimated through letter No. 208 dated 9.2.2006 to come present in the M.E. Lab, Sangrur on 14.2.2006 for the checking of the removed meter in his presence. In compliance to the said letter, the meter was sent to M.E. Lab, Sangrur through challan No. 75 dated 14.2.2006 and the said meter was checked on the same date in M.E. Lab, Sangrur in the presence of the respondent. During the checking, it was found that four M.E. seals of the meter were found tempered and a case of theft was declared. After admitting these facts, respondent signed the store challan. Notice No. 309 dated 17.2.2006, raising a demand of Rs. 14,191/-, was issued on the basis of the checking done in the M.E. Lab. The respondent failed to deposit the amount of Rs. 14,191/-, therefore the PDCO No. 25/15851 dated 17.2.2006 was issued and the same was effected on 7.3.2006 andthe F.A. No. 1390 of 2006 3 meter No. 3479093 was removed from the premises of the respondent. At the time of the removal of the said meter,the same was checked by Sh. Pritpal Singh, Jr. Engineer alongwith other staff members and it was found that 3 M.E. seals of the meter were found tempered alongwith body of the meter and a case of theft of electricity was declared at the spot. The said meter was packed at the spot in the cardboard box. But the respondent refused to sign the checking report. Thereafter the appellants issued the memo No. 481 dated 9.3.2006 in which the respondent was asked to deposit Rs. 36,342/-, which included earlier unpaid demand of Rs. 14191/-. The said notice was received by Balwinder Kaur, representative of the respondent but she also refused to sign the copy of the notice. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
5. Parties filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. Learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellants to withdraw the notice No. 481 dated 9.3.2006 demanding a sum of Rs. 36342/-.Compensation of Rs. 2000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 1000/- were also allowed.
7. Hence the appeal.
8. Record of the District Consumer Forum has been perused.
9. The version of the respondent was that his connection was checked in his absence by the some officials of the appellants and they visited again after 2-3 days and removed the meter. It has been further contended that the meter was neither sealed or packed at the time of the removal nor the same was checked in his presence. The appellants have proved the inspection report of meter inspector dated 12.5.2005 as Ex. R-2 in which the meter was declared defective but there were no remarks indicating doubts regarding the tempering of the seals of the meter. This inspection report does not bear any signatures of the respondent or his representative. Thus, the contention of the respondent has been found to be correct that the checking was done in his absence.
10. The said meter was removed on 27.7.2005 vide MCO No. 125/60193 dated 16.5.2005 which has been proved as Ex. R-1 by the appellants. Perusal of this removal report shows that the meter No. 620318 was removed but it does not carry any F.A. No. 1390 of 2006 4 signatures of the respondent. However there are remarks on the MCO that the meter was packed in a cardboard box but it also does not contain remarks whether the respondent / consumer was present at that time.
11. The appellants have placed on record the notice No. 208 dated 9.2.2006 issued to the respondent (Ex. R-3) vide which he was directed to come presentin M.E. Lab,Sangrur on 14.2.2006 at 10.00 a.m. This notice is received by,one Monika but no remarks indicating the relation of Monika with the respondent is mentioned. The appellants have also proved on record, the store challan No. 75 dated 14.2.2006 as Ex. R-4 vide which the meter was sent to the M.E. Lab.But the actual report of M.E. Lab confirming the tempering of seals, has not been proved, nor there is any evidence from the officer who actually carried out the checking of the meter in M.E. Lab on 14.2.2006. Thus it is evident that neither the meter was removed/seal packed in the presence of the respondent on 27.5.2005 nor the same was checked in his presence in M.E. Lab on 14.2.2006. Therefore, in the absence of the ME lab checking report, it cannot be presumed that the meter was having tempered seals specially when there are no such remarks in the inspection report of the meter inspector, who checked the meter before removal on 12.5.2005.
12. The checking report of the second meter, at the time of affecting the PDCO on 17.2.2006, by the Jr. Engineer of the appellant Board,(proved as Ex. R-7), shows that the M.E. seals of the meter were tempered and the case of theft of electricity was declared at site. But this meter was never sent to M.E. Lab for the confirmation of the fact that the M.E. seals, which were provided by the ME lab itself, were actually tempered. In this report also the signatures of the respondent are not available even though there are remarks that the consumer refused to sign. But it is evident that the case of theft of electricity has been declared on the spot by J.E. himself without obtaining the report of M.E. Lab. Thus the demands raised by the appellants as per the checking dated 7.3.2006 and 14.2.2006 are against the rules and regulations of the appellant Board and the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
13. In view of the above discussions and findings, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. F.A. No. 1390 of 2006 5
14. The appellants have deposited Rs. 15000/- at the time of filing of the appeal on 6.11.2006. The amount of Rs. 15000/- alongwith interest, if any, be refunded to the appellants by way of crossed cheque/bank draft immediately.
15. The arguments in this case were heard on 14.12.2011 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER December 16, 2011.
Rupinder