Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs SURESH KUMAR

IT is the say of the complainant that on 22.9.1998 a team of Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited led by Assistant Director (Vigilance) visited the premises of the complainant- Mr. Suresh Kumar who runs a small scale Chakki for earning his livelihood and checked the electric meter. Though the meter was OK, HVPNL imposed a penalty of Rs. 74,731 out of which Rs. 35,000 has already been deposited by the complainant on 8.10.1998. He further alleged that HVPNL without getting the meter tested from the independent agency i.e., Chief Electrical Inspector has imposed this penalty.

IT was contended by HVPNL that the meter was checked by a team of officers led by Assistant Director (Vigilance) when three numbers of M & T Seals out of four were found tampered and the digits were also found to be disturbed and there was theft of energy. After hearing the parties the District Forum held that mere tampering of seals does not prove that the complainant was making theft of the electricity. The allegation of theft is of a criminal nature and had to be proved with cogent and reliable evidence which the respondent had failed to produce. Accordingly, the District Forum quashed the penalty of Rs. 74,731 and directed refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 35,000 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of realisation. Dissatisfied by the order of District Forum HVPNL filed an appeal before the State Commission in which it submitted that ADV team of the HVPNL conducted the raid at the premises in the presence of the complainant and during the checking it was found that out of four M & T seals of the meter, three seals were found tampered with and the digits were found disturbed. Further, the meter disk was not moving on one phase, hence, penalty was imposed. The State Commission held that "from the record it is not clear that on which date the seals were found tampered with and the disk was not moving. Meter reader of the opposite party must be taking reading from the electricity meter and if the meter was stricky or there was some defect, the meter must not be showing any reading. It is pertinent to note that there is no such report in this regard on the file. Even the checking report does not indicate that how and in what manner the seals were tampered with. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed." Hence, this revision.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the records of the case we come to the conclusion that the reasoning given by the State Commission for dismissing the appeal is cogent and clear. Hence, we do not see any merit in this revision petition warranting our intervention in the concurrent findings of the Fora below under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.