State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Surinder Singh on 20 October, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1241 of 2006.
Date of Institution: 28.09.2006.
Date of Decision: 20.10.2011.
Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Divn. Fatehgarh Churian, Tehsil Batala,
District Gurdaspur, through its SDO.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Surinder Singh S/o Sh. Hardial Singh, R/o Ward No.8, Garden Colony,
Fatehgarh Churian, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
07.08.2006 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate for
Sh. A.S. Manaise, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Punjab State Electricity Board, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 07.08.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Surinder Singh, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant, pleading that he is an unemployed youth and is running an 'Atta Chakki' at his house i.e. Fatehgarh Churian, Tehsil Batala, for earning his livelihood and he himself is working on the 'Atta Chakki' and has not employed any other person. The said 'Atta Chakki' was installed in the month First Appeal No.1241 of 2006 2 of March, 2005 and the respondent has no other source of income. The first bill dated 15.04.2005 of the 'Atta Chakki' was to the tune of Rs.3560/- and thereafter, in the months of May, June, July, August, September, it was of less amounts and the respondent paid all the bills.
3. The meter reader of the appellant came every month for taking meter reading and he inspected the electric meter every month as on the bill, status of the electric meter was shown as 'OK'.
4. The appellants sent a notice dated 24.10.2005 vide which, demand of Rs.2,34,963/- was made which is totally illegal, uncalled for and was required to be rectified. The appellant never checked the meter of the respondent in his presence, nor the respondent ever tampered with the seals of the meter. He never stopped the meter, nor committed any theft of electricity and the story mentioned in the letter dated 24.10.2005 is false and concocted and the demand is liable to be quashed.
5. Employees of the appellant illegally disconnected the electric connection of the 'Atta Chakki' on 30.10.2005 and their act is illegal due to which the respondent has suffered irreparable loss and injury, mental agony and harassment and there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, and prayed that the appellant be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.2,34,963/- demanded vide letter dated 24.10.2005 and also pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2500/-.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant, it was admitted that the respondent is running 'Atta Chakki' and account number is SP-53/419. The respondent is not a consumer and he is not running the Atta Chakki for his livelihood. It was further pleaded that the bills have been issued to the respondent on the basis of consumption recorded by the meter. The meter reader is not competent to check the meter. He is only authorized to take the consumption/reading of the meter.
7. On 26.09.2005, Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement), PSEB, Amritsar-I visited the premises of the respondent and instructed the First Appeal No.1241 of 2006 3 respondent to remove the meter and sent it for checking in the ME Lab., PSEB, Verka. The Meter Change Order dated 26.09.2005 was issued and the meter was packed and sent to ME Lab., PSEB, Verka. Packed meter bearing seal no.511592 dated 26.09.2005 was opened and checked in the presence of the respondent and he admitted that the meter has been checked in his presence in the ME Lab and signed the ME Lab. report. It was found at the time of checking by the ME Lab. that the respondent has tampered with the ME seals of the meter in order to slow the consumption of the meter. The meter was running slow to the extent of 95.95% than the normal and the respondent was indulging in theft of electricity and caused a great loss to the appellant. The bill dated 24.10.2005 was issued, demanding Rs.2,34,963/- and the demand is legal and valid and as per the rules of the Board. The respondent failed to deposit the said amount as a result of which, TDCO no.18/17470 dated 20.10.2005 was issued and after one month, PDCO no.65/14408 dated 30.11.2005 was issued and affected on 08.12.2005. The connection of the respondent was disconnected and he is liable to pay Rs.2,34,963/- on account of theft of energy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum took into consideration the consumption as shown on the reverse of Ex.R10 from the month of May till the month of July and calculated the average as 500 units per month, and directed the appellant to charge the respondent on the said basis. It was further directed to restore the electric connection on the receipt of copy of the order without charging any restoration charges.
First Appeal No.1241 of 2006 4
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.08.2006, the appellant has come up in appeal.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. Flying Squad, Amritsar-I checked the electric connection of respondent on 26.09.2005 in the presence of the respondent and checking report was signed by the respondent. The meter was packed and sealed and was sent to the ME Lab. and it was found that the ME seals of the meter were tampered and the circuit of the meter was also tampered and the meter was recording 95.95% less consumption. Respondent was committing theft of electricity and vide Ex.R13, the calculations were made and total amount recoverable was found to be Rs.2,34,963/- and accordingly, the bill was issued which is under challenge in the present appeal.
13. The respondent has taken the plea as well as the defence that the status of the meter was 'OK' and he has not tampered with the meter and the District Forum has rightly ordered the consumption on the basis of 500 units per month. We do not agree with this plea. The respondent himself pleaded in his complaint that the first bill was of Rs.3560/- which is dated 15.04.2010 but later on, it kept on reducing and ultimately, it was Rs.800/- only in the month of October, 2005. This itself shows that the respondent had started meddling with the consumption and it was reducing every month. The meter reader is not competent to check the meter and his connivance also cannot be ruled out and the electric connection of the respondent was checked by the Flying Squad and the District Forum altogether ignored the same and calculated the units on presumptions and assumptions and observed that the meter has not been properly checked. This finding of the District Forum is perverse and against the evidence on record. The checking of the meter was conducted by a senior officer of the Flying Squad in the presence of the respondent/complainant and the meter was removed, sealed First Appeal No.1241 of 2006 5 and packed in his presence. The meter was again checked in the ME Lab. in his presence and the meter was found tampered and the consumption was slowed to the extent of 95.95%, but the District Forum outrightly ignored all this for the reasons best known to it. Therefore, the order of the District Forum is illegal, perverse and is not sustainable.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 07.08.2006 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- payable to the appellant within two months of the receipt of copy of the order.
15. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
16. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.10.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member October 20, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)