State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Senior Executive Engineer vs Piara Singh S/O Sh.Fateh Chand on 3 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.975 of 2003
Date of institution: 04.08.2003
Date of Decision :03.11.2003
The Senior Executive Engineer/Sanchalan, PSEB, Focal Point Ludhiana.
........Appellant.
Versus
Piara Singh s/o Sh.Fateh Chand, Plot No.121, Tejpur Road, Kartar Nagar,
Gali No.1, Ludhiana.
........Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 05.06.2003
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Presiding Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Rajesh Chaudhary, Advocate for Sh.Sanjiv Pandey, Advocate For the respondent : None PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by PSEB(in short 'the appellant') against the order dated 05.6.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(in short the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was residing in plot no.121, Tajpur Road, Kartar Nagar, Gali No.1, Ludhiana where a domestic electric connection bearing account No.IF-37/0853L was lying installed in his name and he had been consuming the electricity from this account and had been making the payment of the bills and no amount was due towards the electricity consumption charges. The officials of the appellant had been visiting the property and taking the readings and they always found that the meter was First Appeal No. 975 of 2003 2 working properly and its seals were intact. The appellant suddenly visited in the 1st week of Feb, 2002 and removed the meter in his absence and installed a new meter. The meter was not removed or packed and sealed in his presence. The appellant raised a demand of Rs.73,924/- on 2.4.2002 on the allegations that one of the seals was tampered with, current coils were damaged and meter was running slow by 84.36%. He visited the appellant and requested to withdraw the demand as he never tampered with the meter. All the bills issued by the appellant show that earlier meter was giving correct reading and the consumption was not less. Instead of withdrawing the illegal demand the appellant disconnected the electric connection. He ran from piller to post to get quashed the demand and to get restored the electricity supply but to no effect. The life of the respondent had become hell due to disconnection in the summer season. The removed meter was not checked in the M.E.Lab. in his presence nor any notice was issued to him to reach the M.E.Lab. for checking of the meter. This Hon'ble Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the meter in question was installed in Ludhiana and the respondent was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The respondent prayed that the appellant be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.73,924/- raised by them and to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages suffered by the respondent on account of mental torture and agony and loss in business and to restore the connection. Any other additional or alternative relief to which the respondent was found entitled in the circumstances be also granted.
3. The appellant/opposite party filed their reply and alleged that the respondent has not come to the Forum with clean hands and had suppressed the true and material facts, as such, he was not entitled to First Appeal No. 975 of 2003 3 any relief from this Forum. Moreover, there was no deficiency in service, the true facts of the case are that the electric connection No.IF- 37/0853 in the name of Piara Singh was checked by Sh.S.P.Sood, A.E. of PSEB on 9.1.2002 in the presence of the respondent and his son Binder Pal. The meter was changed vide MCO dated 9.1.2002. The meter was packed and sealed in the presence of the consumer and his son and the same was sent to the M.E.Lab for its checking. The respondent was served with a notice to come to the M.E.Lab for checking of the meter but he did not come and as such the meter was checked on 7.2.2002 in his absence and during the checking it was found that one M.E. seal was missing and remaining two M.E. seals were found broken and current coil of meter was also cut and was recording 84.36% less consumption. It was a preplanned case of theft of energy and so the account of the consumer was overhauled and an amount of Rs.73,924/- was found recoverable. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case PSEB Vs Ashwani Kumar this Hon'ble Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present case being a theft case. It was admitted that the connection was in the name of the respondent. IT was denied that he had made the payment of the bills. It was denied that the meter was working properly and its seals were intact. It was denied that the appellants suddenly visited the respondent's premises in the 1st Week of February, 2002 and removed the meter in his absence. It was denied that the meter was not packed in the presence of the respondent. It was admitted that demand of Rs.73,924/- was raised. It was denied that the respondent never committed any theft of energy or tampered with the meter. It was denied that the meter was giving correct reading. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. It was First Appeal No. 975 of 2003 4 denied that they suffered any hardship, mental torture, agony etc. due to non supply of the electricity. The appellant, therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, allowed the complaint and the disputed amount was ordered to be refunded to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit. The connection which was disconnected for non payment was ordered to be restored within 10 days.
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 appellant.
7. Memo No. 2279 dated 2.4.2002 (Ex. R-5) was issued to the respondent by the appellant for the demand of Rs. 73,924/- as theft charges on the report of the M.E. Lab Ex. R-3.
8. The meter of the respondent was checked by Sh. S.P. Sood, A.E. of P.S.E.B. on 9.1.2002 in the presence of the respondent as well as his son Binder Pal. Checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of the respondent, who thumb marked the same after admitting the same to be correct and received the copy of the checking report dated 9.1.2002(Ex. R-1). The meter of the respondent was changed vide MCO Ex. R-2 at the spot and the same was sealed in a card board box in the presence of the respondent and his son Sh. Binder Pal and the respondent also thumb marked the MCO Ex. R-2 after admitting the same to be correct.
9. Notices Ex. R-6, R-7 and R-8 were served upon the respondent to come present in the M.E. Lab, Ludhiana but the respondent refused First Appeal No. 975 of 2003 5 to receive the notices Ex. R-6, R-7 and R-8. Affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Singh, J.E. Focal Point Division Special, P.S.E.B., Ludhiana is also tendered into evidence in the District Forum to this effect that the respondent had refused to accept the said notices and stated that he will not come in the M.E. Lab. The meter was sent to M.E. Lab on 7.2.2002 through Sh. Ranjit Singh, J.E. for its checking and the affidavit to this effect of Ranjit Singh, J.E. is also placed on the District Forum file. The meter was checked in the M.E. Lab on 7.2.2002. It was mentioned in the checking report that the meter was received in the M.E. Lab in a packed and sealed condition in the card board box, which bears the paper seals signed by Tarsem Lal, J.E. as well as the consumer itself and it was found during the checking in the M.E. Lab that one M.E. seal was missing, remaining two M.E. seals were found broken and current coil of the meter was also cut. The meter was also tested on the test bench and the meter recorded 84.36% less consumption and it was a pre-planned case of theft of energy. On the basis of the checking report of the M.E. Lab, a demand of Rs. 73,924/- was raised.
10. The appellant has proved beyond doubt that the respondent was committing theft of energy by tampering the meter. But the appellant not given the detail how the appellant calculated the amount of Rs. 73,924/- . The appellant also neither mentioned in the reply nor in the affidavit when the meter in dispute was installed in the premises of the respondent. No evidence was also produced by the appellant to this effect.
11. The order of the District Forum is not based on the evidence, which is already on the file as such, we set-aside the order of the District Forum. When no date is given for the installation of the meter by First Appeal No. 975 of 2003 6 the appellant then we are unable to fix the date for the overhauling of the account of the respondent and we are of the opinion that free hand not be given to the appellant to fix the date of installation as per their own sweet will. So in the absence of the date of installation, in the interest of justice, we ordered that the appellant overhaul the account of the respondent for 6 months prior to the date of checking of the meter of the respondent i.e. 9.1.2002 as per the regulation/circular of the respondent, which was applicable at the time of checking of the meter.
12. It was held by this Commission in "First Appeal No. 989 of 2002(Charanjiv Lal v. Punjab Sate Electricity Board and another) as under:-
"25. The instructions which are relied upon by the respondents totally absolve the respondents of their duty of checking the electric meter after few intervals and empowers the respondents to recover electric energy charges from the date when the meter was installed. These instructions put the whole burden upon the subscriber and burden him down with the responsibility. When the Meter Reader of the respondents visits the premises of the consumer/subscriber every month or bi-monthly he is also duty bound to see if the electric meter was running in a normal manner or if it was tampered with by the consumer. If it was not possible for the Meter Reader, then the Flying Squad/Checking Staff should also visit the premises after few intervals to ensure that the electric meter was not tampered with by the consumer. If the respondents are sleeping over the matter and do not check the electric meter of the subscriber for five years, the appellant/subscriber cannot be held responsible for it.
26. It is, therefore, held that the respondents are justified to overhaul the account of the appellant for a period of six months prior to the date of checking i.e. 5.4.2001 and not for an unlimited period."First Appeal No. 975 of 2003 7
13. This observation was also followed by this Commission in "First Appeal No. 76 of 2003(Roshan Lal versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another)".
14. In view of the above discussion, we accept the appeal partly. The appellant is entitled to impose theft charges upon the respondent for 6 months prior to the date of checking of the premises of the respondent i.e. 9.1.2002 as per the sanctioned load of the respondent.
15. Appellant is directed to re-calculate the amount as theft charges as per the above directions and issue a fresh demand notice for the recovery of the same to the respondent. If any excess amount is deposited by the respondent with the appellant against the demand in dispute, the same be refunded to the respondent by the appellant with interest @ 7½% from the date of receipt till its refund. However, if any amount is not deposited by the respondent with the appellant, then the appellant is entitled to recover the same from the respondent and the respondent is bound to pay the same within 1 month from the receipt of demand notice/memo for the recovery of the theft charges.
16. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 28.10.2009 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Lt. Col.Darshan Singh [Retd.])
Presiding Member
November 03, 2009 (Piare Lal Garg)
As/- Lb/- Member