LABH SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2014-2-1
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 20,2014

LABH SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Gurcharan Singh Saran, J. - (1.) THE appellant/complainant (hereinafter called "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 12.1.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 519 dated 10.7.2009 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. The complaint was filed by the complainant that he is consumer of the O.P. having connection No. P -26CH330780H of 1.94 KW single phase connection. The meter is installed outside the premises in the street, therefore, there cannot be any tampering and his consumption is 100 to 300 units bio -monthly. The meter is working correctly. However, the respondent is illegally demanded a sum of Rs. 55,130 from the complainant as per the checking report dated 1.7.2009: In fact there is no such checking as alleged by them. In case, there was any such 'Tilting of the meter', the same should have been sent to the M.E. Lab. The complainant never tampered with the meter, therefore, the demand of the respondent is illegal and liable to be set -aside. Representation was made to the OPs but they denied. Hence, the complaint.
(2.) THE complaint was contested by the OPs, who filed written statement taking the facts that the premises of the complainant were checked by Er. Joginder Singh, A.E. along with Bishambar Nath, J.E. and others on 1.7.2009 and the complainant was found of committing theft of energy as per checking report and the connected load was 4.286 KW against the sanctioned load of 1.94 KW. Meter was tilted and it was running 50% slow. The copy of the checking report was given on the spot. Notice was issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Accordingly, it was submitted that there is no merit in the complaint and the same be dismissed. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
(3.) IN support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C -1, affidavit of Darshan Singh Ex. C -2, memo dated 6.7.09 Ex. C -3, bill dated 30.3.2009 Ex. C -4, deposit receipt Ex. C -5, bill dated 31.1.2009 Ex. C -6, deposit receipt Ex. C -7, bill dated 2.12.08 Ex. C -8, deposit receipt Ex. C -9, bill dated 24.10.08 Ex. C -10, deposit receipt Ex. C -11 to C -13, reply dated 9.7.09 Ex. C -14, postal receipt Ex. C -15 to C -17. On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of J.K. Jindal Ex. R -1, affidavit of Joginder Singh Ex. R -2, affidavit of Rajinder Singh Ex. R -3, checking report Ex. R -4, notice Ex. R -5, notice under Section 135 Ex. R -6.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.