State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Sukhdev Singh S/O Sh. Bachan Singh, on 31 May, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 509 of 2006
Date of institution : 31.3.2006
Date of Decision : 31.5.2011
1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Senior XEN Operation
Division, Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Dhariwal, Dhariwal, District
Gurdaspur.
....Appellants.
Versus
Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Bachan Singh, R/o Mission Hospital Road, Dhariwal,
Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 14.2.2006 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Gurdaspur.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. B.S. Taunque, Advocate
For the respondent : None.
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:
This order will dispose of two appeals i.e. First Appeal No. 509 of 2006(Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Sukhdev Singh), First Appeal No. 510 of 2006(Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Sukhdev Singh) and First Appeal No. 511 of 2006(Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Sukhdev Singh). The same are preferred against the three orders dated 14.2.2006 by which the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter called 'the District Forum') has accepted all the complaints. All these appeals are being disposed of with a single order as all the appeals are filed against the demands raised by the P.S.E.B. on the basis of checkings dated 21.10.2005 and First Appeal No. 509 of 2006 2 26.10.2005. The main facts are taken from 'First Appeal No. 509 of 2006' and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the electric connection bearing A/c No. CF-27/0671 was installed in the respondent's house where family of Hardial Singh, his brother-in-law was residing. Appellant changed the electric meter with new electronic meter as per their scheme in the absence of the respondent as well as Hardial Singh. It was pleaded that his electric meter was 'OK' but the appellants were alleging that the removed meter was not tallying with the record of the appellants. Appellants threatened to disconnect his electric connection. Respondent filed complaint No. 796 of 2005 in the District Forum and stay was granted by the District Forum vide order dated 25.10.2005. Thereafter, appellant issued memo No. 2781 dated 26.10.2005, vide which a demand of Rs. 3160/- was raised on the allegation of theft of energy, which was illegal. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the demand of Rs. 3,160/- may be quashed/withdrawn and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- may be awarded against the appellants.
3. Appellants replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable as the respondent does not fall within the definition of 'consumer', complaint was false and frivolous. It was pleaded that electric connection No. CF-27/0671 was issued by the appellants. Respondent committed theft of energy by using unfair means. On 21.10.2005, premises of the respondent was checked by the officials of the appellant and found that MCB was not installed, MTC was missing and meter was removed by Enforcement Checking Staff in the presence of Hardayal Singh, who signed the checking report after admitting the same to be correct. New Electronic meter was installed. Notice dated 28.10.2005 regarding checking of meter in the M.E. Lab was served. On checking, First Appeal No. 509 of 2006 3 meter was found defective and notice regarding the demand of Rs. 3160/- was issued.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint and the appellant were directed not to recover amount of Rs. 3160/- demanded vide memo No. 2781 dated 26.10.2005.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum.
7. First Appeal Nos. 509 & 510 of 2006 relates to the checking of electric connection of the respondent dated 21.10.2005.
8. There is no dispute between the parties that electric connection bearing A/c No. CF-27/0671 was installed in the house of the respondent by the appellants where Sh. Hardial Singh, brother-in-law of the respondent was residing. There is also no dispute between the parties that the old meter of the respondent was removed and a new electronic meter was installed by the appellants in the house of the respondent on 21.10.2005 and on the checking of the removed meter the officials of the appellants found that the M.C.B. seals were not installed and M.T.C. seals were missing, however, M.N.T. seals were intact. It was mentioned in the checking report dated 21.10.2005 that the removed meter was sealed with the paper seal bearing No. 335076 dated 21.10.2005 for the checking of the removed meter from the M.E. Lab. At the time of checking, Hardial Singh, who was using the electric connection in dispute was present and signed the checking report in Punjabi.
9. Vide letter dated 26.10.2005, a letter Ex. R-8 was issued to the respondent that the meter removed on 21.10.2005 will be checked in the M.E. Lab on 28.10.2005 and he should come present on the same First Appeal No. 509 of 2006 4 date in the M.E. Lab, Gurdaspur. A demand of Rs. 3160/- was raised from the respondent by the appellants that he was committing theft of energy as the removed meter did not tally with the meter which was installed by the appellants in the premises of the respondent and the reading of the meter also differed with the record of the appellants and a fake meter was installed by the respondent. As such, he was liable to pay the charges of Rs. 3160/-.
10. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellants that appellant No. 2 approached all the other Sub Divisions in the neighborhood to verify whether the meter removed from the premises of the respondent belongs to any of the Sub Division. In reply to the verification the Sub Division, Naushera Mit Singh of the appellants vide letter dated 28.10.2005 intimated appellant No. 2 that the meter removed from the premises bearing No. 2941562 belongs to their Sub Division. So, it is also proved from letter dated 28.10.2005 and letter dated 22.10.2005, which is at page No. 73 of the complaint; was served upon the respondent to explain from where he had arranged the meter which was removed from his premises. But the same was not served as the person who had gone to serve the same reported that the house of the respondent was found locked by the person, who had gone for the service of the notice.
11. Demand of Rs. 3160/- was raised by the appellants on the basis of the checking report 21.10.2005 and on the allegation that the meter which was removed from the premises of the respondent by the officials of the appellants was fake and did not tally with the record of the PSEB.
12. We have perused the checking report dated 21.10.2005. In the checking report, it was mentioned that the removed meter be checked from the M.E. Lab. Notice dated 26.10.2005 (Ex. R-8) was also served First Appeal No. 509 of 2006 5 upon the respondent by appellant No. 2 that the meter in dispute will be checked from the M.E. Lab, Gurdaspur on 28.10.2005. But no report of the M.E. Lab was produced by the appellants to prove that whether the meter was found fake or the respondent was committing theft of energy and what was the reading when the meter was checked in the M.E. Lab. It was also not replied whether the respondent was present at the time of checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab or not. By not producing the M.E. Lab report, it is proved that the version of the appellants was not correct that the respondent was committing theft of energy.
13. The version of the appellants that the meter was fake and did not tally with the record of the appellants. But nowhere in the reply of the complaint, the number of the original meter was mentioned nor the number of the removed meter was mentioned to prove their allegation. No record was produced by the appellants regarding the meter when the same was installed in the premises of the respondent. No affidavit of any official of the Sub Division, Naushera Mit Singh was also produced by the appellant to prove their allegation that the removed meter belonged to the Sub Division, Naushera Mit Singh and did not tally with the record of the appellants.
14. In view of the above discussion, the appellants have badly failed to prove that the respondent was committing theft of energy and that the removed meter was fake.
15. The order passed by the learned District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The First Appeal No. 509 of 2006 being without any merit is dismissed and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs. First Appeal No. 509 of 2006 6 First Appeal No. 510 of 2006
16. In the above mentioned appeal, the respondent had prayed that the appellants may be directed not to disconnect the electric connection of the respondent as well as also not to harass him.
17. We have perused the complaint. In the complaint, neither checking was challenged nor any demand was challenged by the respondent. It was a simple complaint for the issuance of the direction to the appellants not to disconnect the electric connection of the respondent. This is a simple case of permanent injunction which is not maintainable in the District Forum as there was no deficiency in service was challenged by the respondent.
18. However, in reply to the complaint the version of the appellants was the same, which was given in Complaint No. 807 of 2005. The demand of Rs. 3160/- of the appellants has already been quashed by the District Forum and the order of the District Forum has already been affirmed by the Commission in First Appeal No. 509 of 2006.
19. As such, the order of the District Forum is against the pleadings of the respondent as well as prayer made in the complaint. As per order of the Commission in First Appeal No. 509 of 2006, the First Appeal No. 510 of 2006 as well as Complaint No. 786 of 2005 is dismissed as having become infructuous (being not maintainable) as in both the appeals the dispute was only of Rs. 3160/- on the basis of checking report dated 21.10.2005, which has already been quashed in Complaint No. 807 of 2005 as well as in First Appeal No. 509 of 2006. First Appeal No. 511 of 2006
20. In this appeal, the respondent has prayed not to disconnect his electric connection. But in the complaint, checking dated 26.10.2005 by the officials of the appellants was not denied. It is also not pleaded in the First Appeal No. 509 of 2006 7 complaint that the electric connection of the respondent was not checked by any official of the appellants on 26.10.2005. Disconnection of his electric connection by the appellants on 24.10.2005 was also not denied by the respondent in the complaint. The whole complaint is vague and only prayer was made in the complaint that the appellants may be directed to admit the claim of the respondent and not to disconnect the connection of the respondent. But in the whole complaint, demand of the appellants was not challenged by the respondent.
21. We have perused the checking report. It was mentioned in the checking report that electric connection of A/c No. CF-27/1125 was checked by the officials of the appellants and found that the respondent was using electricity by adopting unfair means and meter was not found fixed permanently. The meter of the respondent was disconnected on 24.10.2005 but on 26.10.2005 it was found that the respondent himself connected his electric connection by installing from the main joint of the electric wire. He was found using the electricity illegally and was committing theft of energy. It is also mentioned in the checking report that the respondent refused to sign the checking report.
22. To prove the checking report, the appellants tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. R-3 of Dilbagh Singh, J.E., who had checked the electric connection of the respondent on 26.10.2005 and who affirmed and declared in his affidavit that the respondent was committing theft of energy by connecting the wire with the main joint and he fully corroborated the checking report Ex. R-4. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the electric connection of the respondent was already disconnected on 24.10.2005 by the appellants.
23. In view of the above discussion, the order of the District Forum is against the pleadings and prayer of the respondent. The complaint was First Appeal No. 509 of 2006 8 filed only for the issuance of the direction that his connection may not be disconnected by the appellants but no demand was challenged in the said complaint. Even no rejoinder was filed by the respondent to rebut/counter the demand of Rs. 3105/-, which was raised by the appellants on the basis of the checking report dated 26.10.2005.
24. As such, the order of the District Forum is against the pleadings of the complaint. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order under appeal is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint No. 792 of 2005 filed by the complainant/respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.
25. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 25.5.2011 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
26. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
May 31, 2011. (Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma)
as Member
First Appeal No. 509 of 2006 9