HARI SINGH vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS is an appeal by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Ludhiana dated 12.4.2005 vide which his complaint has been dismissed.

THIS appeal was received by post. When notice was sent to the appellant that he should come present on a date fixed for motion hearing or he should engage a Counsel, he wrote a letter that he was not in a position to engage a lawyer because of paucity of funds. In these circumstances, we had requested Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant and assist us in this matter. We have heard the Counsel for the parties. The complainant had challenged the issuance of a demand notice by the Punjab State Electricity Board (in short ''PSEB'') by way of a bill dated 19.12.2003 wherein an amount of Rs. 33,089 was shown as sundry charges and Rs. 3,655 as surcharge. The electricity meter from the premises of the complainant was removed on 22.1.2003 and was tested in the M.E. Lab on 3.6.2003. The M.E. Lab report shows that there was a tampering with the meter and was running slow. It was showing 40% less energy being consumed than the actual consumption. It was the case of the PSEB that the aforesaid demand was raised on the basis of the M.E. Lab report. The District Forum after appreciating the evidence and the arguments dismissed the complaint.

MR . Suvir Sehgal, Advocate argued that when the meter was removed from the premises of the appellant complainant nothing was pointed out as to whether there was anything wrong/tampering with the meter. No reason was forthcoming as to why the meter was, at all, removed. He further argued that after the removal of the meter it should have been sent to the M.E. Lab within a particular specified period as per the instructions in the sales manual and thereafter in the M.E. Lab also the meter should have been checked/tested within a particular period. In this case though there is nothing on the record as to when the meter was sent to the M.E. Lab but it was tested on 3rd of June, 2003 i.e., almost about five months of the removal of the meter from the premises of the complainant. It was further argued that the first notice (Ex. R -3) that is stated to have been served on the complainant was to come present in the M.E. Lab on 10.4.2003 when the meter would be tested. The complainant or his representative could not go and thereafter another notice (Ex. R -4) was sent to the complainant to come present in the M.E. Lab on 24.4.2003. The complainant or his representative did not come present in the M.E. Lab. Another notice Ex. R -5) was sent that the meter would be tested on 6.5.2003. The last notice was not personally served as the house is stated to have been found locked but had been left there as per the report of the official of the PSEB. The fact remains that no body came present on behalf of the appellant complainant in the M.E. Lab on 6.5.2003. The argument proceeded that since the meter was actually tested on 3rd of June, 2003 and not on 6.5.2003 another notice should have been sent to the complainant to come present at the time of the testing of the meter in the M.E. Lab.

SO far as the first argument is concerned, suffice it to say that it has come on the record now that when the meter was removed from the premises of the complainant the meter was duly packed in a cardboard box and sealed. In the M.E. Lab report it is also mentioned that the seals on the cardboard box were intact. The fact that in the M.E. Lab report it has come now that there was some tampering with the meter and the meter was found running slow the argument that the meter was removed without any rhyme or reason loses its significance inasmuch as ultimately in the M.E. Lab it was found that the meter had been tampered and was running slow. The meter can be removed from the premises on some prima facie suspicion/evidence. It may be visual or otherwise. We do not find any force in the argument of the learned Counsel that the meter had been removed from the premises of the complainant without any cause or reason. Coming to the point that the meter was not sent to the M.E. Lab within the specified period or it was not tested within the specified period suffice it to observe that the period mentioned in the instructions cannot be held to be mandatory in the circumstances but is only directory. We may not be taken to be laying down that the period has not to be adhered to. The question is: if the period is not to be adhered to has any prejudice been caused to the consumer? There is a safeguard provided for the consumer i.e., that the meter is kept in a cardboard box, which is sealed and the signatures of the consumer/his representative as also of the official packing the meter are to be appended on the seals. When the meter is to be tested in the M.E. Lab the consumer/his representative is asked to be personally present. This is for the reason that the consumer can be satisfied that the seals, which were put on the cardboard box are intact and further the meter is tested in the presence of the consumer/his representative. If the seals are found intact then even if there is any delay in sending the meter to M.E. Lab or testing the meter in the M.E. Lab that does not prejudice the case of the consumer. We may further add here that the delay in testing, really speaking, would not alter the result of the testing because the meter is not a perishable item and whatever the defect was there would remain even after the time mentioned in the instructions. It is, under these circumstances, we are holding that the period mentioned in the instructions is directory and is not mandatory. Coming to the third point that if the meter was not to be tested on 6th of May, 2003 and it was being postponed to another date i.e., 3rd of June, 2003 the complainant should have been asked again to be present in the M.E. Lab. According to us, if despite notice the complainant does not appear on a particular date when the meter is supposed to be tested and for some reasons the meter is not tested on that date, there is no statutory requirement that again the complainant should be served. It may make some difference if on a particular date the complainant is present but the meter cannot be tested for some reason and another date is given then of course at that very time the complainant will be made known of the next date. In the present case, despite first two notices having been served on the complainant, he did not come present in the M.E. Lab. Even the third notice though was physically not served was yet left at the residence of the complainant. The notice, which was served after the service of the first notice, according to us, was not really required under law but as a courtesy or concession the second and the third notices were issued. Accordingly we find that if no fresh notice was issued to the complainant for testing the meter on 3rd of June, 2003 no illegality has been committed by the PSEB. We find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

BEFORE we part with the judgment, we would like to put on record our appreciation for Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate who has assisted us in this matter very amicably. Appeal dismissed.