Back
2009(1) CPR 373
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
K.C. Gupta, President, Maj. General S.P. Kapoor and Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
Punjab State Electricity Board through
Senior Executive Engineer —Appellant
versus
M/s. Jyoti Phoschem —Respondent
RBT No. 563 of 2008 in Appeal No. 61 of 2002
Decided on 22.9.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sh. Dinesh Bagga, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where meter was found running slow during inspection and its examination in ME Lab in accordance with procedure revealed tampering of meter, issuance of bill on basis theft of energy would not constitute deficiency on part of electricity board.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 12 and 17—Deficiency in service—Electricity bill issued alleging theft of electric energy—Complaint challenging the bill—District Forum allowed complaint and quashed bill penalty of Rs. 2,44,176 and directed OP to refund the amount with interest @ 12% p.a. —Appeal—Connection was found slow by 5.15% during inspection—Meter was replaced and old meter duly packed was opened in ME Lab in presence of representative of complainant—Meter inspection revealed it tampering by complainant as clamp was loosened, scratches on counter plate and places on window were found and black paint was applied on meter—Facts established a case of tampering of meter —Issue of demand could not be said to be deficiency in service—Impugned order was liable to be set-aside. (Para 7)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Devinderjit Dhatt, Member— This appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Commission, under the orders of Hon’ble National Commission has been filed against order dated 9.11.2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar in complaint case No.2189 of 2000. The contextual facts in brief are as under.
2. The respondent/complainant is consumer of appellant/OP for the supply of electricity and is aggrieved against the amount of Rs.9,613 raised vide memo No.3081 dated 17.8.2000 issued on the ground that the meter of the complainant was running slow. Further amount of Rs.2,44,176 was subsequently raised vide memo No.4463 dated 27.11.2000 alleging theft of electric energy by the complainant firm. It is averred by the complainant that it was sanctioned a load of 60 Kws at the time of its inception but subsequently applied for enhancement of load by 38 Kw and same was duly sanctioned. It is the say of the complainant that the premises of the firm are periodically inspected by the staff of the concerned Sub-division and even the enforcement wing has been conducting periodical checks. During the last visit of the flying squad conducted on March, 1997 the working of the unit was found to be in order. It is further stated by the complainant that on 5.8.2000 the premises were inspected by the enforcement wing and memo No.30 was issued whereby the working of the unit was found to be within the limits of sanctioned load. It is stated that all the seals were found intact and the meter was running properly. However an observation was made that the installed meter was more than 10 years old and the same should have been replaced by the appellant/OP along time back. The allegation of meter being slow by 5.15% was made, though tempering of the meter was not alleged. It is submitted by the respondent/complainant that though the meter was not referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector but a fine of Rs. 9,613 was imposed and the same was paid under protest on 1.9.2000. It is stated that new meter installed after 74 days. The complainant has further averred that to observe the working of the meter with regard to allegations of being slow, it monitored the reading of newly installed digital meter on daily basis and new meter reflected a daily average consumption of 435 units on average of 51 days as against a daily consumption of 448 units recorded by the old meter on an average period of six months. It is stated that the old meter was checked in the M.E. Lab but the inspection made was not legal and valid and a false charge of meter being slow was leveled. It is also alleged that the complainant was not allowed to present its case and the SDO, PSEB Mall Mandi, Amritsar was directed to disconnect the supply and demand of Rs. 2,44,176 was raised and this amount was paid by the complainant under threat of loss of business. It is submitted by the respondent complainant that if the last visit of enforcement wing made on March, 1997 is taken as a base, the certificate of electrical fitness was issued by the OP. In the following two years after March, 1997 the complainant unit made a payment of Rs. 16,01 lacs as electricity charges to the PSEB and no theft of energy was detected as none was made. It is alleged that the penalty has been imposed wrongly and the same deserves to be quashed. In the prayer clause, a direction is sought against the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 9,613 and Rs. 2,44,176.
3. In the written reply filed on behalf of OP, the preliminary objection of complaint having been passed on wrong facts due to which it deserves dismissal on this ground itself.
In the reply on merits, the OP has submitted that the connection of the complainant was found running slow by 5.15 % during an inspection by Additional Superintending Engineer, Enforcement-II, Amritsar on 5.8.2000, consequent to which the complainant’s account was overhauled and it would notice to pay Rs.9,613 was issued after adding the factor of slowness to
