DHARAM SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order of ours we are disposing of 2 appeals received by transfer from Punjab State Commission, under the orders of Hon ble National Commission as these are arising out of the order dated 17.12.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala, Punjab (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 249 of 5.5.2003.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the complainant was having an electric connection bearing account No. MS 33/110 with sanctioned load of 61.393 KW. He is running a Briquetting for earning his livelihood by self -employment. The OP vide its letter bearing No. 823 dated 30.4.2003 raised a demand of Rs. 1,77,669 from the complainant within two days as the ME Lab had detected scratches on the meter, readings having been upset and the hole on the upper side of the meter. The checking was conducted on 29.8.2001 but nothing incriminating was observed by the OP and it was mentioned in this report that checking was conducted on the request of AEE Sub -Division, Rajpura, on the account of counter figures not found in straight line and in order to avoid confusion in recording monthly readings, the meter be replaced. The meter was replaced by the OP and the removed meter duly packed in a box by the staff of OP and the complainant was asked to reach the ME Lab on 25.1.2002, which he did. The box was opened but no hole, scratch etc. were found by the laboratory staff and the officials of the Electricity Board was asked to submit the consumption data. The meter was put in the box but not sealed. In response to the notice, on 7.4.2003 the complainant again attended the ME Lab but the meter was not checked in his presence. The OP raised the aforesaid demand against the complainant on the allegation of theft of energy but the complainant submits that the aforesaid demand is unjustified, illegal and against the rules and regulations as the complainant never committed any theft of energy. Hence, the complaint was filed by the complainant seeking the quashing of the demand raised by the OP along with payment of compensation and costs.

(3.) REPLY was filed by the OP and they pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer as he had used the electricity for commercial purpose. It was pleaded that the connection was checked by the Additional S.E. PSEB Enforcement on 25.8.2001 in the presence of AEE Operation Sub -urban Division, Rajpura and representative of the complainant. The meter was ordered to be changed and the removed meter was sent to the ME Lab on 25.1.2002, on that date the ME Lab wanted the consumption data of two years prior to 25.1.2002 and the consumption data of new meter. The consumption data of new meter was observed but the complainant did not appear in the ME Lab and again notices dated 31.3.2003 and 7.4.2003 were issued to the complainant for attending the checking. The meter was checked on 10.10.2003 and it was reported that there was hole on the upper side cover of the meter which amounted to theft of energy. So, the demand raised by the OP from the complainant was as per the rules and was justified. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.