State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Anand Plastic Vpo Bapora vs Dhbvnl on 2 August, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.850 of 2010 Date of Institution:11.06.2010 Date of Decision:02.08.2010 M/s Anand Plastic VPO Bapora District Bhiwani through its Proprietor Anand Kumar s/o Sh. Hari Kumar r/o VPO Bapora, District Bhiwani. Appellant Versus. 1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar through its Managing Director. 2. The Superintending Engineer, OP Circle, DHBVNL, Bhiwani. 3. The Executive Engineer, OP City Division, DHBVNL, Bhiwani. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, OP, Sub Division, DHBVNL, Tosham. .Respondents Present:- Mr. I.P.S. Sawhney, LO for the appellant. BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. O R D E R
JUSTICE, R.S. MADAN, PRESIDENT:-
By way of filing the complaint before the District Forum, complainant has challenged the demand of Rs.1,80,513/- raised by the opposite parties against his electricity connection bearing A/c No.BPA-708/SP, on account of theft of energy.
The plea of the opposite parties was that during the checking conducted by the Vigilance Staff of the Nigam on 12.9.2006, two numbers of round seals were found tampered with and some adhesive was found provided near the hole of both the seals/side latch wire. Hence taking it a case of theft of energy, checking report was prepared on the side, which was signed by the representative of the complainant. Thereafter, penalty was assessed as per the rules and regulations of the Nigam. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complaint merited dismissal.
Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective stands taken before the District Forum.
While disposing of the complaint, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint by observing in para No.9 of the complaint as under:-
As regards non-joining of independent witness or taking of photographs or video graphy of the site, it is not disputed that the representative of the complainant Sh. Keshav Kumar was present, as it has been admitted by the complainant himself and checking was effected in his presence and copy of the checking report was given to him. So there was no need to join independent witness when the representative of the complainant was present at the time of checking. So there is no need to take photographs or videography, as the checking was effected in the presence of representative of the complainant and the checking has not been denied at all by the complainant. Moreover, there is n o need to produce the meter in the Forum, as it is the admitted fact that the meter in question was checked by the M&T Lab in the presence of the complainant at Hisar. So mere not producing of meter in the Forum does not make the case of the respondents doubtful. Hence, in these circumstances, the checking report, charging of amount provisionally and final report and notices are legal and justified and the complaint is liable to pay the amount of penalty as assessed by the respondents. So the complainant has miserably failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Hence the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, appellants/opposite parties have filed the present appeal before this Commission.
We have gone through the impugned order and taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and are of the view that in the instant case the checking in question was conducted in the present of Sh. Keshav Kumar, representative of the complainant and thereafter, the electricity meter of the complainant was checked at the M&T lab of the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant, and in the report of the M&T lab the version of the checking report was confirmed with respect to the theft of energy by the complainant. In this view of the matter, we feel that District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint vide its impugned order, which does not call for any interference in this appeal.
No merit. Dismissed in limini.
2nd August, 2010 Justice R.S. Madan.
President.
Dr. Rekha Sharma Member Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member