HARI SHARAN Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against order dated 9.11.2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 1944 of 2000, Sh. Hari Sharan v. Punjab State Electricity Board.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the sole proprietor of Amrit Ice Factory and is having an electric connection bearing Account No. MS -1 (now MS -25) with sanctioned load of 64.640 KW. On 17.6.1998, the Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement, Batala checked the premises of the complainant and no discrepancy of any kind was detected by the checking staff. As per the complainant, the OPs imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,61,658 vide memo No. 2960 dated 17.6.1998 on the plea that paper seals affixed on various parts of the metering equipment were not in order and the same were damaged one about a year old. It was averred that the complainant deposited 1/3rd of the penalty amount for getting the connection restored. The matter was adjudicated upon by the Disputes Settlement Committee, which finally quashed the penalty vide order dated 15.1.1999. Thereafter, it was averred, the premises of the complainant was again checked by the Sr. XEN Enforcement, Taran Taran on 10.5.1999 and the checking staff did not find any discrepancy of any nature as all the seals of the MCB as well as the meter body were found to be intact and in proper condition. As per the checking staff, the paper seal affixed on the meter glass was also found to be intact but it found a small gap/hole on the MCB, which was got plugged by the inspection team at the spot by way of coverage with welding. The meter, which was not installed at the gate of the factory, was removed along with the MCB on 18.9.2000 and a new electronic meter was installed by the OP at the premises of the complainant. The removed meter was sent to the M.E. Lab on 21.9.2000 and no discrepancy of any nature was detected in the meter and the metering equipment. As per the complainant, the allegation of the OP that the complainant could have access to the meter from the hole of the MCB meant for incoming and outgoing cable was totally false. It was averred that all the paper seals on the MCB, lead seals of the meter and paper seal affixed on the MCB glass along with meter glass were found to be in perfect and intact condition. As per the complainant, it was not possible for any kind of access to anything inside the MCB from the alleged hole. It was averred that the complainant received memo No. 3627 dated 22.9.2000 whereby the OP raised a demand of Rs. 2,40,632 as penalty on account of theft of electric energy and the penalty amount was deposited by the complainant under protest. Alleging this act of OP in imposing penalty of Rs. 2,40,632 on account of theft of electric energy despite the fact that all the seals on the MCB, meter glass and MCB were found to be intact and perfect order, as deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant filed complaint seeking directions to the OP to withdraw the impugned memo and to refund Rs. 2,40,632 to the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The complainant had also sought compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000 on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.

(3.) THE version of the OP is that the MCB and CTC containing the meter and CT with wiring existing at site was removed and packed without opening the MCB and CTC on 21.9.2000 in the presence of the complainant, who signed the seals affixed on the box. As per the OP, it was detected during the checking by the SDO, ME Lab that there were holes of 10 cms each through which leads going towards meter were approachable without removing service cable. It further pleaded that on opening the CT Chamber, it was observed that Secondary CT of red phase had joint on lead of same CT i.e. S -1 lead and the PV insulation of S -2 had been torn into two parts and copper wire had been removed only from that portion. It further asserted that the open wires were approachable through these holes on CTC through artificial mean, which was kept concealed after its use. As per the OP, a case of theft of electric energy was made out against the complainant and it was asserted that the penalty had been lawfully raised by the OP. Pleading no deficiency on their part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.