RAVINDER KUMAR NAYYAR vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

IT is an appeal against the order dated 27.5.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts, stated in the complaint are that the appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was a consumer of electricity and an electric meter was installed at his resident since 1990. He got installed three-phase electric connection with a sanctioned load of 7.8 K.W. The meter from the very first day did not show any consumption of electricity and he was being billed on the basis of load installed and the bills were paid as and when presented. On his request the meter was changed by the SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No. 2) on 11.7.1991 and he started receiving the bills. On 18.2.1994, an alleged Task Force visited his premises to check the electric connection such as points of lights, fans, wall sockets and power sockets etc. in order to see as to whether the load within the sanctioned limit. The said Task Force again visited the premises of the complainant in his absence and put a sort of paper seal on the meter box. The meter was not even sealed. On 23.2.1994 at 9.45 a.m. opposite party No. 2 along with 6/8 staff persons visited his premises and informed that the meter was defective and was being removed. He agreed to the removal of the meter. After the removal he had asked for the installation of the new meter. He was given a letter in Punjabi in which it was alleged that he was committing the theft of energy and as such he should make a payment of Rs. 12,267/- as demanded. It was then alleged in the complaint that the complainant sought some time to make the payment but the opposite party refused to wait. Even his supply was disconnected. He had offered to make the payment through cheque but the opposite party refused and stated that unless the payment was made in cash or through draft the supply would remain disconnected, as such he had to pay the said amount. The said demand, according to the complainant, was illegally raised in order to harass him. No theft was ever committed. It has been mentioned that he was using 10.593 K.W. against the sanctioned load of 7.8 K.W. and that fresh test report be submitted. His load was within the sanctioned limit. No excess load was being used as such he was entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 12,267/-, which was paid by him. It was then mentioned in the complaint that he was entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- for alleged allegation of theft of electricity levelled against him. In addition, he was entitled to recover Rs. 75,000/- for mental tension and agony and another sum of Rs. 75,000/- for alleged mental agony and tension for using excess load. The opposite parties in their reply has taken preliminary objections that the complainant was not a consumer, the complaint was frivolous, the matter involved was of complicated nature and the complainant himself has admitted the theft and as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The installation of the meter and the payment of bills by the complainant was not disputed. It had been admitted that the Task Force had visited the premises of the complainant. According to the opposite party at the time of inspection of the Task Force the complainant was found consuming more electricity than the sanctioned load and on the basis of the same a demand was raised for deposit of Rs. 12,267/-. The paper seal was fixed in the presence of the employee of the complainant. It was admitted that the demand was raised on the basis of theft of electricity committed by the complainant. According to the opposite party since the complainant was committing theft as such the bill in dispute was raised. The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties, District Forum dismissed the complaint.

HENCE this appeal. In the case in hand, the opposite party had produced the checking report, which was prepared at the time of checking. The said report bears the signatures of Smt. Kanta Nayyar, the wife of the complainant. It means the report was signed by the representative of the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint itself that on the day of checking i.e., on 18.2.1994 Task Force of the opposite party had visited the premises of the complainant to check the electric installations such as points of lights, fans, wall sockets and power sockets etc. The checking was, thus, admitted by the complainant in his complaint itself. It is also mentioned that the complainant was not present and the checking was done in his absence. The complainant being not present his representative signed the report. In the report complete details regarding the light points, fans, power plugs and geyser points are given and as per report the total load installed was 10.593 K.W. It clearly shows that the complainant was using more load than the sanctioned one. On the report, which is signed by the representative of the complainant, it is mentioned that it was a theft case. It is also mentioned in the report that all the four seals of the meter were found broken. When the seals were found broken a presumption was there that the consumer was indulging in the theft of electricity. When the seals were found broken then there was no need even for getting the meter checked. An extract of the Sales Manual, which finds place on the file of this case clearly reads that when a consumer is found committing theft of energy through any artificial means like tampered seals or where all M.E. seals are found broken and meter cover could be opened or where meter/metering equipment itself was tampered, the connected load, pattern of industrial operation and actual consumption recorded leads to the conclusion that the consumer had been indulging in theft of energy then suitable compensation has to be worked out by the department. It is provided therein that monthly consumption for the purpose of overhauling the accounts shall be worked out on the basis of load and the period for which compensation amount was to be computed shall be reckoned from the date of installation of a meter or from the date of checking. In the case in hand, the demand was created from the date of installation of the meter. It finds mention in the complaint itself that the complainant''s meter was changed on 11.7.1991 and the payment was raised from the said date. Thus, the same procedure was followed as mentioned in the instructions. It could not be said that the demand was illegally raised. The tampering of the seals being there it could not be said that the case was wrongly treated by the opposite party as a theft case. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur and Others v. Harsh Wood Product and Others, II (1996) CLT 366 (SC)=1996 (1) Apex Court Journal, page 669, has ruled that when Board detects that a consumer had committed any malpractice with reference to his use of electrical energy including authorized to installations, unauthorized extension and use of devices to commit theft of electrical energy, may disconnect the supply of electricity forthwith and may call upon consumer to make payment for compensation of unauthorized use of electricity. In the M.P. Electricity Board''s case (supra), it is also observed that the consumer was not entitled to any hearing before disconnection. It was further observed therein that when the pilferage of the electricity is there then Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 does not apply. In the case in hand, the seals were found tampered with and the report prepared at the spot was duly signed by the representative of the consumer. In these circumstances, it could not be said that it was not a case of theft of energy. As a matter of fact, the report had not been challenged. It has rightly been held by the District Forum that the demand had rightly been raised and there was no question of refund of amount paid by the complainant.

THE opposite party had issued memo for recovery, which has been produced as Annexure C-A by the complainant and as per Annexure C-A 7 days'' time was given to the complainant to deposit the amount. THE complainant has himself admitted that he had deposited the money immediately. Threat of disconnection in this case, thus, could not be said to be illegal. THE overhauling of the account was done as per instructions of the Board. In our view no deficiency in service is proved on the part of the opposite party. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed; however, without any order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.