Our CorrespondentLudhiana, January 22
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has quashed a demand of the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) of Rs 9,595 on account of theft of energy from Mr Kartar Singh, a resident of Mangli village. The forum has also directed the PSEB to refund the said amount deposited against the demand from the date of deposit till actual payment.
According to the complaint, he was issued a bill for Rs 9,831 on May 25, 2001, in which Rs 9,595 was included on account of sundry charges. The representative of the complainant, Mr S.D. Nagpal, stated before the forum that before issuing the bill no notice was given to consumer which was required.
Mr Nagpal further stated that the consumer was deprived of getting a chance of explanation as he was never a defaulter in making the payment of the bill. It was alleged that the demand had been raised illegally as the consumer had never tampered with the meter for theft of energy. The consumer approached PSEB officials to investigate the matter, but they failed to do so, he added. It was further stated that the demand had not been raised as per rules and liable to be quashed.
The PSEB pleaded that the consumer was using 2.80 KW of power against the sanctioned load of 1 KW. The respondent maintained that this was found during a special drive to detect the theft of energy in the area by the junior engineer on January 27, 2001. It was also reported that the complainant was committing theft of energy by bypassing the meter and fixing direct wires from the PVC cable and as such he was using electricity for the TV electronic shop from his domestic connection.
The respondent stated that the consumer was at fault as he was using the electricity connection for commercial purpose. It was disclosed that the meter terminal seals were missing, to affect the proper recording of consumption of energy. It was alleged that the meter was checked in the presence of the consumer, but he refused to sign the report. An amount of Rs 9,527 was found recoverable on account of theft of energy charges and unauthorised surcharge penalty that was why the demand had been raised, it added. The respondent said that the demand had been rightly raised and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The forum observed that in support of the allegation of not signing the checking report by the consumer, there was no affidavit of the junior engineer concerned who had alleged to have checked the meter. The forum stated that if the consumer had refused to sign the checking report, it was essential that the affidavit of the JE should have been produced to prove the actual checking.
The forum held that the disputed demand was liable to be quashed as the checking of meter was not done as per rules.
