PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.N. Aggarwal, President and Jasbir Kapoor, Member
NIRMALA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. - Respondents
Appeal No. 522 of 2002
Decided on : 30-04-2008
Electricity Theft - Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Commercial Circular No. 33/99 - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Commercial Circular No. 33/99, and their application in a case of alleged theft of electric energy. The court highlighted the importance of serving notice to the consumer before disconnecting the electric connection and emphasized the need for compliance with statutory instructions in cases of theft of electric energy.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a subscriber of a commercial electric connection, filed a complaint against the respondents under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging a demand bill and seeking compensation and costs. The respondents had disconnected the electric meter and raised a demand of Rs. 3,28,480 on the grounds of tampering and theft of electric energy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the earlier complaint was accepted due to lack of notice to the appellant before disconnecting the connection, but upheld the demand notice in the present case as the respondents had served a notice detailing the demand and calculations to the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with statutory instructions, the validity of the demand notice, and the application of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Commercial Circular No. 33/99 in cases of alleged theft of electric energy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of serving notice to the consumer before disconnecting the electric connection and held that compliance with statutory instructions in cases of theft of electric energy is crucial. It also highlighted the need for detailed notice and calculations when raising a demand for alleged theft of electric energy.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no deficiency in service as the demand was raised due to the appellant's theft of electric energy. The appellant was given the liberty to resort to any other remedy available in accordance with the law.
ORDER
S.N. Aggarwal, President - Nirmala Devi appellant was the subscriber of commercial electric connection No. SP-02/0290. No electricity was used from this electricity connection for the last two years as no business was being done from this property. The officials of the respondents used to visit the premises of the appellant for recording the reading but since the electricity was not being consumed, therefore, they used to charge the bill on average basis. A letter was also sent by the appellant to the respondents to that effect. There was no response from the respondents. Therefore, the appellant used to make the payment of electricity bills on average basis. The officials of the respondents visited the premises of the appellant on 12.9.2000 and removed the electric meter in her absence. It was neither removed nor packed in her presence. The electric connection was disconnected. The respondents were contacted but there was no response.
2. As a result the appellant had filed a complaint (Complaint No. 1164 of 12.10.2000) against the respondents under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "District Forum"). Learned District Forum vide order dated 22.5.2001 had directed the respondents to restore the electricity connection and also to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 5,000 to the appellant. This order was not complied with by the respondents. They issued a demand notice on 4.10.2000 making the demand of Rs. 3,28,480 on the ground that the electric meter of the appellant was found tampered with. Objections were lodged with the respondents but to no effect. Hence the appellant filed the present complaint in the learned District Forum challenging the demand bill dated 4.10.2000 along with compensation and costs.
3. The respondents filed written statement. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was pleaded that the appellant has suppressed material facts. It was admitted that the appellant was subscriber of electric connection bearing account No. SP-02/0290. It was checked by AEE/JE-1 (Commercial) of Sunder Nagar Division Special on 12.9.2000. It was reported that 4 number M.E. seals were found tampered with and the meter was not working properly. The meter was removed. It was packed in a cardboard box. It was duly sealed by JE-1 Jagdev Singh. The paper seals were signed by the representative of the consumer. The consumer was served with a notice to reach the M.E. Lab. on 14.9.2000 for checking of the meter. The notice was received and signed by Smt. Sudha Rani representative of the appellant but the consumer deliberately did not reach the M.E. Lab. on 14.9.2000. The consumer was given another notice on 18.9.2000 to reach the M.E. Lab. on 19.9.2000 for testing the meter in her presence. The notice was returned by Ajay Kumar Verma with the remarks that his father had gone out of station. The consumer was given another notice on 25.9.2000 to reach the M.E. Lab. on 26.9.2000 so that the meter is tested in her presence in the M.E. Lab. It was stated in the notice that it was the final notice and if the subscriber failed to turn up, the meter would be opened and tested in her absence. The notice was returned with the remarks that the consumer had refused to receive the notice.
4. It was further pleaded that thereafter the meter was tested in the M.E. Lab on 26.9.2000. As per the report of the M.E. Lab. all the M.E. seals were found tampered with. There were scratches on the figures of the meter. The counter of the meter was also changed. The meter was recording 84.12% less energy. It was a case of measured theft of electric energy.
5. It was also pleaded that accordingly the account of the consumer was overhauled as per the provisions of Commercial Circular No. 33/99 by AEE (Commercial). The notice was served on the consumer to deposit Rs. 3,28,480. However, she filed the complaint in the learned District Forum and the learn
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.