PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs AVTAR SINGH

IT is an appeal against the order dated 20.1.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum).

AS per the complaint, appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) vide notice dated 2.4.2002 sent a demand of Rs. 68,946/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) to be paid by 17.4.2002. No details of payment were given. The complainant had approached the opposite party for investigation of the matter but he was asked to make the payment in order to avoid the disconnection. It is then stated that the complainant was forced to make the payment. The meter was removed from his premises, which was not packed in cardboard box. The meter was not sent to M.E. Lab within 15 days and no notice regarding the checking in the M.E. Lab was given to him. The demand, according to the complainant, raised against him was against rules. He sought that the demand be quashed and the amount deposited be refunded with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till refund along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Opposite party in its reply took the preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable since there was no deficiency in service. According to the opposite party, the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was changed and was sent to the M.E. Lab on 15.2.2000 and on checking it was found that all the M.E. seals were fake. The counter of the meter was changed and the meter was recording 50% less energy. It was the case of measured theft. The account of the complainant was overhauled as per CC No. 33/99 and the demand of Rs. 68,946/- was raised. It was admitted that the complainant was a consumer of opposite party and the demand was raised. According to opposite party, the demand having been raised as per rules, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence this appeal. We have heard the Counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the order of the District Forum minutely.

The material part of the order by which the complaint has been allowed by the District Forum is reproduced hereunder: "The complainant has challenged the demand of Rs. 68,946/- raised on account of theft of electricity. The opposite party has produced the report of M.E. Lab Ex. R-1. On the report, it is mentioned that the meter was unpacked when it was received in the M.E. Lab. The opposite party has not produced any evidence that the meter was packed and sealed on the spot. No evidence has been produced that any notice was given to the consumer regarding the checking in the M.E. Lab. The report of the M.E. Lab does not bear signatures of the consumer. As such, the rules were not complied with while raising the demand. Therefore, the disputed demand is quashed and the amount deposited against the demand is ordered to be refunded with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till refund. Parties left to bear their own costs. Compliance of the order be done within one month from the receipt of this order."

WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. In the report of the M.E. Lab Ex. R-1 produced by the opposite party it is mentioned that the meter was unpacked when it was received in the M.E. Lab. The opposite party has not produced any evidence proving that the meter was packed and sealed on the spot. No evidence was produced to show that any notice was given to the complainant informing him that the meter shall be checked on a particular date so that he could be present in the M.E. Lab at the time of checking the meter. The report of the M.E. Lab does not bear signatures of the consumer. Obviously then the rules framed by the opposite party itself have not been complied with. The factual position mentioned in the order of the District Forum has not been rebutted by the learned Counsel for the opposite party before us even today. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is, thus, dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.