NIRMALA DEVI Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -NIRMALA Devi appellant was the subscriber of commercial electric connection No. SP-02/0290. No electricity was used from this electricity connection for the last two years as no business was being done from this property. The officials of the respondents used to visit the premises of the appellant for recording the reading but since the electricity was not being consumed, therefore, they used to charge the bill on average basis. A letter was also sent by the appellant to the respondents to that effect. There was no response from the respondents. Therefore, the appellant used to make the payment of electricity bills on average basis. The officials of the respondents visited the premises of the appellant on 12. 9. 2000 and removed the electric meter in her absence. It was neither removed nor packed in her presence. The electric connection was disconnected. The respondents were contacted but there was no response.

(2.) AS a result the appellant had filed a complaint (Complaint No. 1164 of 12. 10. 2000) against the respondents under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "district Forum" ). Learned District Forum vide order dated 22. 5. 2001 had directed the respondents to restore the electricity connection and also to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 5,000 to the appellant. This order was not complied with by the respondents. They issued a demand notice on 4. 10. 2000 making the demand of Rs. 3,28,480 on the ground that the electric meter of the appellant was found tampered with. Objections were lodged with the respondents but to no effect. Hence the appellant filed the present complaint in the learned District Forum challenging the demand bill dated 4. 10. 2000 along with compensation and costs.

(3.) THE respondents filed written statement. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was pleaded that the appellant has suppressed material facts. It was admitted that the appellant was subscriber of electric connection bearing account No. SP-02/0290. It was checked by AEE/je-1 (Commercial) of Sunder Nagar Division Special on 12. 9. 2000. It was reported that 4 number M. E. seals were found tampered with and the meter was not working properly. The meter was removed. It was packed in a cardboard box. It was duly sealed by JE-1 Jagdev Singh. The paper seals were signed by the representative of the consumer. The consumer was served with a notice to reach the M. E. Lab. on 14. 9. 2000 for checking of the meter. The notice was received and signed by Smt. Sudha Rani representative of the appellant but the consumer deliberately did not reach the M. E. Lab. on 14. 9. 2000. The consumer was given another notice on 18. 9. 2000 to reach the M. E. Lab. on 19. 9. 2000 for testing the meter in her presence. The notice was returned by Ajay Kumar Verma with the remarks that his father had gone out of station. The consumer was given another notice on 25. 9. 2000 to reach the M. E. Lab. on 26. 9. 2000 so that the meter is tested in her presence in the M. E. Lab. It was stated in the notice that it was the final notice and if the subscriber failed to turn up, the meter would be opened and tested in her absence. The notice was returned with the remarks that the consumer had refused to receive the notice.