ASSISTANT DIRECTOR VIGILANCE HSEB vs Khazani

THIS appeal by the Haryana State Electricity Board is directed against the order of District Forum, Rohtak restraining the appellant from recovering Rs. 5625/- and further awarding Rs. 2,000/- as damages for the toss suffered with a direction not to reconnect the electric connection of the tube well.

THE respondent had admittedly installed a tube well nearly ten years ago in her land at village Dadri Toi, tehail Jhajjar, District Rohtak which was supplied electricity by the Board. On the 16th of February, 1992, the appellant-Board''s staff visited the said tube well premises and removed the electric supply meter and the cable there from. THE o primal ground therefore was that the electric motor and the starter was not in the tube well room. While the clear cut case of the complainant was that because of the electric motor having been burnt out, the same alongwith its other appratus has been sent to an electrician at Badli for repair. However, the staff of the appellant-Board later imposed a heavy penalty of Rs. 5625/- on the complainant with any cause and notice or reasons therefore on the mere suspicion that there was a theft electricity at the tube well. On notice being issued, the appellant-Board admitted the fact of the energised tube well of the complainant for the last decade. However, it was the case that the checking party on the 16th of February, 1992 did not find the electric motor, the starter or the capacitor in the tube well room and further the allegation was that there was no bore at the spot also. From the fact that the surrounding land had been irrigated, it was presumed that there has been some theft and unauthorised use of energy for the purpose. On this ground it was alleged that the respondent had become a permanent defaulter and because he has failed to maintain his energy consumption apparatus at the site and was abstracting electricity from the system, the heavy penalty was imposed upon her.

In support of the complainant - respondent''s plea, her husband Sumer Singh; stepped into the witness box and relied on the unchallenged documentary evidence on the record. In rebuttal, RW Balbir Singh, Assistant Director and RW 2 D.P.S. Verma, Junior Engineer of the Board gave their testimony.

THE District Forum on a very close appraisal of the material on the record came to the conclusion that the entire action of the appellant- Board in imposing penalty and disconnecting the tube well was without any authority of law and there was nothing on the record to show that the complainant-respondent had unaudiorisedly used the electric power in any manner whatsoever Consequently relief was granted in the terms noticed at the very outset. Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant was somewhat at a loss to assail the considered findings of the District Forum in its exhaustive order. It was argued that the consistent testimony on behalf of the appellant was that there was no bore existing on the site and equally no electric motor thereat and the consequential inference that the respondent was continuing with the tube well connection to facilitate the abstraction of electricity by the adjoining land owners was justified.

WE are afraid that there is not the least modicum of merit in the somewhat tenuous stand taken on behalf of the appellant It has been rightly and forcefully asserted by Shri Sunder Singh, the authorised representative of the respondent that the tube well has been in operation for the last ten years and the suggestion that there was no bore at the site is wholly inconceivable and absurd. It deserves recalling that the admitted position is that the respondent as a matter of record has been a consumer for running the tube well for nearly a decade. The appellant has been billing and charged her for electric energy over this period. It is also admitted that at the very inception of the electric connection it is imperative to verify that a tube well bore exists on the spot for which the connection is to be released. What further deserves highlighting is that RW.2 Shri D.P.S. Verma, Junior Engineer himself stated that earlier the bore was there at the spot but curiously stated that when they visited the same, this was not visible. In this context, the findings of the District Forum, therefore, are sound and impeccable and deserve affirmance. It would appear that the primal ground for inferring the abstraction of electricity by the respondent was that at the material time, there was no electric motor or starter or capacitor in the tube well room. This is more than amply explained by the firm stand taken by the respondent that the same had to be removed because the motor had burnt out and alongwith its accompanying equipment it was given to an electrician for repairs. One fails to see how an adverse inference can arise against the consumer-respondent by this mere fact in the absence of the electric motor from the spot. Indeed, this is common ground and the District Forum has taken a considered view of the matter. Even Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant had to concede that the consumer of electric energy is of course, entitled to remove the electric motor for necessary repair when occasion arises. The prejudicial inference against the respondent on this score is thus wholly unjustified. It would then appear that the appellant board had jumped to the conclusion that there was theft of electricity on another factor namely that there was a relatively low consumption indicated in the electric meter over the preceding period. This is more than well explained by the testimony of PW.1 Sumer Singh who stated that they used to run the electric motor three times in a month during the Rabi crop only as they do not sow any Kharif crop in the area. We are of the view that merely low consumption of electricity is no foundation for assuming that there is necessarily a theft of electricity.

IT appears to us from the grounds of appeal and the submissions-of the learned counsel that the respondent is being made a scapegoat for the allegedly undetected thefts of electricity in the vicinity of her tube well. The somewhat outlandish suggestion is that the respondent was maintaining the tube well connection at the far end of the village in order to facilitate the theft of energy by other tube well owners who are served by that line. IT is somewhat elementary that the respondent cannot be penalised merely by the fact of some unfounded allegations of misuse of electric energy by his geographical neighbours. The somewhat curious plea taken in para 11 of the grounds of appeal is that on the material day, on the 16th September, 1992, the raiding party had detected eight cases of theft of energy by tube well owners who had subsequently deposited the penalty Amount and this fact would prove the case against the respondent as well. Such a suggestion has only to be noticed and rejected.

FOR the foregoing reasons, this appeal is wholly without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 200/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.