Back
2007 (1) CPR 114
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
R.S. Mongia, President; C.P. Budhiraja and Mrs. Jasbir Kapoor, Members
Punjab State Electricity Board through
its Senior Executive Engineer, (OP),
Sunder Nagar (Spl.) Division,
PSEB, Ludhiana—Appellant
versus
Mohan Lal—Respondent
Appeal No. 886 of 2001
Decided on 13-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Shri J. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where meter was got examined in ME Lab and on basis of report of Lab that demand was issued to consumer on allegation that there was theft of energy, rules of natural justice demanded that meter was examined in presence of consumer/complainant.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Sales Regulations—Regulations 67.1 and 67.2—Electricity supply deficiency—Electricity meter emitted smoke—Appellant removed it and on basis of report of ME Lab issued bill for Rs. 2,02,690/- — It was alleged that turn of the current coil had been decreased and meter was recording less energy to extent of 82% and ME seals were tampered—Conclusion was drawn that there was theft of energy—District Forum in complaint set aside the demand on ground that meter was not packed in cardboard box and sealed in presence of consumer and nor any notice was given when meter was examined in ME Lab—Appeal—Contention that Regulations did not provide for packing of meter in cardboard box or notice to complainant when meter was examined in ME Lab—What meter was examined in ME Lab, no body knew—Rules of natural justice demanded that consumer should know as to when meter was going to be checked up—Impugned order suffered no illegality.
Held: If we carefully read Regulation 67.1 it envisages that the J.E. would report on the lines to determine as to whether the damage to the meter is due to the default/negligence on the part of the consumer. Learned counsel submitted that there was no suspicion of any damage to the meter or tampering with the meter when the meter was removed by the staff of the PSEB. It was only mentioned that the meter was smoky. The entire basis of the impugned demand is the M.E. Lab report. Who knows as to which meter was tested in the M.E. Lab in the absence of the consumer? Consumer has at least a right under the rules of natural justice to know as to when the meter is going to be checked and on that day he can be himself present or send an authorized representative or even may take an expert who may just observe what is being done without raising any objection. The entire material in the case was collected behind the back of the consumer. Who knows that the default which was being pointed out by the M.E. Lab may have occurred due to the burning of the meter as it is admitted case that when the meter was changed it was smoky. All these things could have been made the subject-matter of cross-check by the complainant had he been given the opportunity to be present at the time the meter was tested in the M.E. Lab. As observed above, under the rules of natural justice if some material is to be collected (in the present case the M.E. Lab report), the meter at least should have been tested in the presence of the complainant which has not been done. (Para 5)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
R.S. Mongia, President—This is an appeal by the Punjab State Electricity Board (in short “PSEB”) against the judgment and order of the District Forum dated 7.8.2001 by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed and the demand of Rs. 2,02,690 was quashed. Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, may be noticed:
2. The complainant alleged that he was observing that there was some sparking in the terminal of the meter about five months prior to the filing of the complaint which was filed on 7.12.2000. This fact was allegedly brought to the notice of Chuhar Singh and Amarjit Singh, Linemen of the PSEB. The said Linemen corrected the loose terminals and re-fixed the same. It was alleged that they did so by removing the outside seals of the terminal plate and the paper seals were fixed. According to the complainant, it was assured that the proper seals would be fixed later on. On 27.8.2000, there was some short-circuiting in the meter which started emitting smoke therefrom. A written complaint was made to that effect. Even a sum of Rs. 375 was deposited for getting the meter checked. On 30.8.2000, the old meter was replaced by a new meter. He received a bill dated 25.10.2000 in the sum of Rs. 3,335 on average basis. Later on, this amount was deleted in the subsequent bills. Later on, he received a memo for depositing a sum of Rs. 2,02,690. This demand was allegedly based on the M.E. Lab report regarding the meter which had been removed. It was alleged that the turns of the current coil had been decreased and the meter was recording less energy to the extent of 82%. The M.E. seals were tampered. From this the conclusion was drawn that there was theft of energy.
3. The District Forum, before whom the demand raised against the complainant by the PSEB was challenged, quashed the demand primarily on the ground that it was the admitted case of the PSEB that the meter was not packed in a cardboard box and sealed in the presence of the consumer/his representative and no notice was sent to the complainant to come present in the M.E. Lab when the meter was to be checked. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to Regulation 131.9.5.1, 131.9.5.3 as also to the regulation concerning follow up for the damaged/burnt meter i.e. Regulations 67.1 and 67.2 of the Sales Regulations. For ready reference the same are reproduced hereunder:
“131.9.5.1 Detailed investigations must be carried out in each and every case before the meter is dismantled with one or the other plea so as to curb the tendency of indiscriminate replacement of tampered meters. Action as per Condition No. 43 of the Conditions of Supply, where called for, should be taken immediately, failing which action should be initiated against the officer/official who removed the meter.
131.9.5.3 Test results of defective meters, before their repair and recalibration, should be obtained and recorded. The cause of defect should also be established and recorded. Genuineness of M&T seals should also be checked and recorded.
67. Follow up for Damaged or Burnt Meter
67.1 If an energy meter/metering equipment or a component thereof is reported dead stop, damages or burnt, before replacing the meter the site shall be inspected by AE/AEF/XEN (Ops.) in respect of ‘LS’ ‘MS’ and ‘BS’ consumers. However, ordinary cases of general meters reported dead stop by Meter Readers and Meters Inspectors may be inspected by the J.E. The AE/AEE/XEN (Ops.)/J.E. should carry out investigation and record his report on the following lines to determine as to whether the damage to meter is due to the default/negligence on the part of the consumer as per provision laid down in clause 34 of the ‘Conditions of Supply’:
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
67.2 The damaged/burnt meter along with first report will be forwarded to ME laboratory by AE/AEE/XEN (Ops.) within one week after the damaged/burnt meter is replaced after recovering the cost of the meter from the consumer. The Officer In-charge of M
