VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
1. This revision petition has been filed by Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in R.B.T.No.248/2007 in Appeal No.560/2001 decided in favour of Kikar Singh, Respondent herein, who was the original complainant before the District Forum.
2. In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent/Complainant had contended that he had taken an electricity connection from Petitioner/Nigam to run his Atta Chakki business in Villa Navli and has been paying his bills regularly as per the actual consumption shown in the meter which was working properly. On 02.08.1998, a Vigilance Sub Inspector of the Petitioner/Nigam inspected the meter of the Respondent and alleged that the seals of the meter appears to have been tampered with and were not genuine, and accusing the Respondent of theft of energy, a penalty of Rs.95,921/- was imposed on him. The meter and cable was removed by the Vigilance Team and electricity supply was also disconnected. Respondent appealed against it before the competent authority of Petitioner/Nigam which also dismissed his appeal. Since, these were false allegations and no details of assessment of penalty was given as also the meter was not sent to MandT Laboratory for testing and no notice was issued prior to imposition of penalty and disconnection of electricity, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that the penalty unduly charged being false and baseless may be quashed, the electricity supply be restored and the Respondent be awarded Rs.1.50 lakhs for loss of business over a period of 9 months and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.
3. The above contentions were denied by the Petitioner/Nigam who stated that the checking of the meter was conducted by a Vigilance Team in the presence of the Respondent and a detailed report was prepared illustrating how the meter had been tampered with which was duly signed by the Respondent. Further, the penalty of Rs.95,921/- was rightly imposed and in fact Respondent had appealed against it before the competent authority of Petitioner/Nigam which had dismissed the same after giving him full opportunity of hearing.
4. The District Forum after hearing both parties and on the basis of evidence, quashed the penalty and directed the Petitioner/Nigam to restore the electricity supply to the Respondent within a period of one month from the date of the order.
Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same by observing as follows:
œIn the instant case since the seals in question were neither sent to the appropriate laboratory nor any cogent proof regarding the abstraction of energy in an illegal manner could be proved, the plea of the OPs that out of the four seals, two were found to be fake as were show to be in cross position cannot be accepted as on above stated ground alone the charge of tampering with the meter cannot be established. Further, we concur with the reasoning given by the District Forum that if the respondent/complainant had put the fake seals bearing the alleged sealer in A M 7 A series, the other seals would have got the impression A O M 39 on both sides on the body cover of the meter which is not even the case of appellant/OPs. Further in the face of averment of the complainant wherein he has categorically stated that his consumption data has remained more or less constant even during the alleged period, the appellant/OPs were required to controvert this by producing such evidence on record as to prove that the consumption shown by the meter was lower during the period in question. It is also an admitted fact that no notice was served on the complainant though it is mandatory that the consumer be given a notice of seven days for imposition of penalty. The appellant/OPs are deficient in services and they have resorted to the action of removing the meter without complying with the procedure as laid down under the act and further the penalty was imposed without giving due notice as required under the act and the sale circular in question. Due to above, we uphold the conclusion drawn by the District Forum that this was done arbitrarily and in an illegal manner.?
Hence, the present revision petition.
5. Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Learned Counsel for Petitioner contended that the Fora below erred in not giving credence to the report of the Vigilance Team which was filed in evidence (Annexure-P3 of the paperbook) clearly indicating in great detail the tampering of the meter through illustrations which was duly acknowledged by the Respondent as proof that this inspection was done in his presence and the actual tampering was specifically pointed out. To a specific query from us, Counsel for Petitioner, however accepted that the seals of meter were not sent to the appropriate Laboratory for checking since it was considered that the detailed report of the Vigilance Team was adequate to prove theft of electricity. The Respondent was also given an opportunity to be heard by the Competent Authority of the Petitioner who after considering all the facts had rightly dismissed his contentions. Thus, theft of electricity was proved.
6. Counsel for Respondent on the other hand pointed out that mere physical inspection of the meter by a Vigilance Team of the Petitioner/Nigam was not adequate to prove theft of electricity which could have only been proved by a scientific inspection of the same in an MandT Lab. This was also as per instructions of the Petitioner/Nigam. Counsel for Respondent further stated that Respondents contention that the meter was not tampered with is further fortified by the fact that there was no change in the meter reading prior to checking of the meter and subsequent meter readings. Further, as per Sale Circular No.4/91, Petitioner was required to give details of the assessment of penalty which was not done in the instant case and also no notice was issued prior to imposition of penalty which was in violation of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1910 as well as the Petitioners own rules and regulations under the Sales Circulars. The Fora below, therefore, rightly rejected the Petitioners appeal.
7. We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record. We agree that in the instant case the Petitioner, as pointed out in the order of the State Commission and again contended by the Counsel for Respondent, did not send the allegedly tampered meter to MandT Lab for checking which was a necessary requirement. Further, no details of how the penalty was assessed, were given to the Respondent nor was he given a notice before imposition of penalty which was clearly in violation of the circulars and instructions of the Petitioner/Nigam itself. Also, Petitioner has not been able to explain the Respondents contention that had the meter been tampered with, then the meter readings prior to the Vigilance Teams check on 02.08.1990 and thereafter would not have been similar. In view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the State Commission and uphold the same. The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. The Petitioner/Nigam is directed to restore electricity supply to the Respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The order of penalty of Rs.95,921/- issued vide Notice/Memo No.SLP-1 dated 14.09.1998 along with surcharges thereon stands quashed.