PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs NATHA SINGH

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that an electric connection was installed in the residential premises of the complainant. The sanction load was enhanced from 8 K.W. to 14.96 K.W. in the year 1997. Officials of the opposite party changed the meter in January, 1998 on the ground of its being defective. The complainant was forced to pay Rs. 150/- vide receipt dated 15.1.1998 as well as Rs. 19,853/- vide receipt dated 15.1.1998 and the inference was given of theft of energy without spelling out details of the same. Neither any memo was served upon the complainant nor any explanation was given, nor the said meter was got checked in the ME Lab. of the opposite party. The said matter was not even referred to the Electrical Inspector. The meter was sealed at the time of its removal. The abovesaid amount was recovered from the complainant under threat of disconnection of electricity. It was then stated in the complaint that at the time of removal of the said meter, the meter was firstly removed and the supply was made direct for two days and then the opposite party had installed a new meter. The abovesaid act of the opposite party was challenged as illegal as the complainant was not given any opportunity to give explanation to the abovesaid illegal demand of the opposite party. The abovesaid act of the opposite party, according to the complainant, was deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party. It was further mentioned in the complaint that the complainant had suffered harassment as well as mental agony along with financial loss, for which Rs. 10,000/- was demanded as compensation. Refund of the above said amount illegally charged by the opposite party was asked to be refunded with interest. Ultimately, prayer was made in the complaint that illegal demand of Rs. 19,753/- as well as Rs. 150/- paid on 15.1.1998 be quashed.

OPPOSITE party had filed the written statement. It was stated in the preliminary objections that the complainant had not approached the District Forum with clean hands. In fact the connection of the complainant was checked by the Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement), Amritsar (I) on 9.1.1998 and during the course of checking it was found that the collar of the meter was bent from the upper side to lower side and the glass of the meter was also tampered and was affixed with some adhesive material and the signs of tampering on the index plate as well as digits of the meter were found, which established that the complainant was suppressing the consumption after tampering with the glass of the meter. So in view of the facts stated above and the variation in consumption it established a case of theft of energy as per Instruction No. 203 of Sales Manual of PSEB and Section 33 of the Abridged Condition of Supply. It was then stated in the reply by the opposite party that the meter of the complainant was removed on 9.1.1998 and it was packed in a cupboard and three paper seals were affixed on it, on which the signatures of Senior Executive Engineer (East Division), S.D.O. (South Sub-Division) and Gurdip Singh representative of the complainant/consumer were obtained and then the sealed meter was handed over to Gurbachan Singh, JE and a compensation of Rs. 19,753/- was imposed as per CC No. 45/97, vide notice No. 42 dated 9.1.1998, which the complainant had deposited on 15.1.1998. It was then stated in the reply that the consumption of the meter was increased from the date of installation of new meter. It was admitted as correct that the meter was removed on the day of checking and the supply was made direct for two days, as the new meter could not be installed due to .non-availability of the new meter in the department. So to avoid inconvenience to the complainant the electricity supply was made direct. It was further submitted in the reply that the provision of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act did not apply in the present case as it was a theft case and was not a case of defective or dead meter. There was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. It was finally prayed that the complaint be dismissed. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and after having gone through the documents and other evidence on the file, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum) accepted the complaint with Rs. 1,000/- as costs and set aside the impugned penalty of Rs. 19,753/-. A direction was given to the opposite parties for refund of the deposited amount with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Hence this appeal.

We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The District Forum has allowed the complaint mainly on the following grounds : (1) That there was no inspection report prepared at the site. Only site report was recorded in the register. If the inspection report is not prepared and not signed by the consumer, allegation of theft of energy cannot be given any weight. (2) That the representative of the consumer was never asked to sign it because the report was not prepared at the spot and meter was also not changed in the presence of the complainant and it was also not got tested from the ME Lab.

THE District Forum has misread the evidence on the file. It has come in the reply and the affidavit of Sh. N.S. Pheruman, Addl. S.E. Enforcement-I, Amritsar that during the course of checking which was done in compliance with the Instruction No. 203 of the Sales Manual of P.S.E.B. and Clause 33 of the Abridged Condition of Supply read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, a clear case of theft was made out against the complainant as it was found at the spot that the collar of the meter was lifted from upper side and lower side and the meter was tampered and some adhesive material was found affixed there and the signs of tampering on the index plate as well as on the digits of the meter were found. It is also stated in the affidavit and the reply of Sh. N.S. Pheruman that at the same time the meter of the complainant was removed on the same day, i.e. 9.1.1998 and it was packed in a cup-board and three paper seals were affixed on it, on which the signatures of Sr. Executive Engineer, East Division, S.D.O. South Sub-Division and Gurdip Singh, representative of the consumer were obtained, Ex. R-l is the report prepared at the site and this factual position stated by the Sr. XEN in his reply and affidavit has been mentioned in this report also. Ex. R-1 found on the record of the case clearly establishes that the report was prepared at the spot. Sh. N.S Pheruman, Addl. S.E. Enforcement also appeared as a witness before the District Forum, wherein he has stated on oath that at the time of inspection, Gurdip Singh, representative of the consumer was present. He was specifically denied in his cross-examination that he had planted Gurdip Singh to get the signatures on the inspection report. It has again come in the evidence of Sh. J.P. Singh Walia, R.A., South Sub-Division, PSEB, Amritsar who was also produced as a witness before the District Forum that site report and inspection report are the same and it is Ex. R-l. He has specifically denied the suggestion put to him by the complainant that no report was prepared at the spot. He has deposed before the District Forum as under : "It is incorrect that no report was prepared at the spot. Site report and inspection report are same and it is Exbt. R-1."

The main basis of the District Forum upon which the complaint has been allowed is thus without any foundation as it is found as a fact on the record that inspection report Ex. R-l was prepared at the site and the signatures of the representative of the consumer Sh. Gurdip Singh were obtained on three paper seals on 9.1.1998 on the same date and time when the meter was taken into possession.

THE authorities cited by the District Forum are not applicable to the facts of this case. If the District Forum has presumed that no report was prepared at the site at all then the question of its being signed or not signed by the consumer or its representative does not arise at all. But in the case in hand even this fact is also established that the officer who had inspected the site had secured the signatures of Sh. Gurdip Singh, representative of the complainant. Without going into the other details in the matter, we find that the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside only on the ground that the District Forum has misread the evidence, particularly with regard to the preparation of the inspection report at the spot. Consequently, this appeal is allowed; order dated 8.12.1999 of the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum for fresh decision in accordance with law after taking into consideration the factual position on the record. The parties are at liberty to adduce fresh evidence in accordance with law. District Forum shall give the parties concerned adequate opportunity of being heard. Record of the District Forum be sent back immediately. Appeal allowed.