EMDET ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as PSEB)

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the appellant who is engaged in manufacturing of various automobile products has an electricity connection from the respondent Board. It was the case of the complainant that they are honest customers and have been paying electricity bills regularly for the preceding two years which were on the average of Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 40,000 per month. On 28.5.1998 the Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement) Amritsar, visited the factory premises and prepared the inspection report, wherein it was mentioned that all the seals affixed on Meter Cover Box (MCB) and MTC were found in tact. The meter glass was under consideration and there were scratches on the number plates and digits of the meter. Allegation of mala fide intention on the part of the Senior Executive Engineer was made. It was the case of the complainant that his premises was again visited by the respondent''s representative on 25.6.1998, on which date, at the time of inspection, while finding the seals affixed on the meter to be in tact yet recorded in the report, "Meter glass seems to be tampered with. There are scratches/signs of tampering on the index plate and digits". This meter was sent to M.E. Lab, Verka, Amritsar, who reported ''decreasing the reading of the meter by the consumer by tampering with the figures of the meter'', based on which a penalty of Rs. 6,92,790 was imposed on the complainant and electricity was also disconnected of the premises of the complainant on 26.6.1998 itself without issuing any show cause notice. It is in these circumstances, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of comprehensive material on record dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal before us.

We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. The main argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that if one alleges tampering of the meter one has not only to allege but also prove beyond doubt the tampering of the Meter Cover Box (MCB). Admittedly, the MCB is sealed from outside at three places and hinges by two separate lead seals and one paper seal containing the cord mark /number of the respondent, thus, making it clear that, lead of the MCB cannot be opened without breaking above said three seals. It was also their case that admittedly an old meter has been installed as a replacement of the original meter and one cannot say that the fault now found by the ME Lab. was not there in existence at the time of installation of the old meter especially, when there is no record of checking the accuracy and working of the meter.

IT was the case of the respondent-Board that their Engineers have visited from time-to-time and recorded their findings in the reports as the appellant fall in large supply (LS) category, hence the record has been kept for all the periodical check-ups made by the respondent-Board. When during the visit in May 1998 there was suspicion of tampering of the meter, it was removed in the presence of the representative of the appellant and was referred to ME Lab which is an independent agency. The report of the ME Lab is quite categorical that there have been tampering of the meter with regard to the figures of the meter, leaving the respondent-Board with no option but to raise the bill based on the report relating to theft of electricity by the appellant. The order passed by the State Commission is well-reasoned and does not call for any interference. After hearing the lerned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the material on record we see on record the inspection report dated 28.5.1998, which records ''that MCB hinges are welded from outside and are not as per design of the Board''. It is after this that the meter was removed and sent to ME Lab for checking. The report reads as follows: "Today on 26.6.1998 a 3 Phase Meter duly packed in a Card Board Box vide Challan No. 4 dated 26.6.1998 has been brought through Mr. Ramesh Kumar, J.E. Gopal Nagar. It is bearing three paper seals No. 43772 to 43774 dated 25.6.1998. The paper seals have been signed by the representative of the Consumer, Sr. Xen, Enforcement - 1, Amritsar, S.D.O. Gopal Nagar, all these seals are alright. This meter has been taken out by tearing off the Card. Board Box. The following are the particulars of the. Meter: 1. Make : SIMCO 2. Meter No. 3012820 3. Branch No. A 88-374. 4. Capacity : 11 KV 30/ 5 A 5. Reading : 357657 Its body contains two Golden Paper seals on the top and right bearing Nos. 916704 and 916703 which is signed by S.D.O, M.E., Amritsar, Sr. Xen, MMTS dated 7.8.1997 which are alright. Its body contains six Almuminium seals which are also alright. The meter has been checked by breaking these six Almuminium seals and two paper seals. After checking the Meter Cover it has been found that the rubber around the glass of the meter from upper side has been melted and a part of the melted rubber is present and the collar is also tampered from the same place and outer side of the glass is filled with some potein or some adhesive and there are signs of tampering on the meter cover. The KWH and KVAH plate of the meter also bore scratches. From the above facts it is proved that the Consumer is decreasing the reading of the meter by tampering with the futures of the meter. All this investigation has been done in the presence of the representative of the Consumer Mr. Moti Nath., Sr. Xen, Enforcement, Amritsar and S.D.O., ME. Amritsar, S.D.O. Gopal Nagar. This meter along with six Almuminium seals have been put into the Box and sealed with three seal Nos. 043788 to 043790 dated 26.6.1998. The paper seals bore the signatures of the Sr. Xen., Enf. and S.D.O., Gopal Nagar. This meter along with Challan No. 4 dated 26.6.1998 has been handed over to Mr. Ramesh Kumar vide Challan No. 131 dated 26.6.1998 and is being returned." (Emphasis supplied)

ADMITTEDLY, there is no opinion of a technical personnel or otherwise brought on record either before the State Commission or before us by the appellant to counter the finding returned by the ME Lab, in view of which, there will be no gainsaying the fact that the report of ME Lab remains unrebutted. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the MCB is sealed from outside also does not stand scrutiny as the report of the Senior Executive Engineer on 28.5.1998 clearly shows that ''MCB hinges are sealed and are not as per design of the Board''. The reliance of the appellant on the evidence of the respondent''s Engineer does not help the appellant for the simple reason that admittedly, MCB has heen provided by the PSEB but if at the time of inspection they were found to contain ''hinges which are welded from outside and are not as per design of the Board then it is the appellant who has to explain this discrepancy. Learned Counsel for the appellant also wishes us to rely upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandra Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 349; MPSEB v. Smt. Basantibai, AIR 1988 SC 71; judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ramesh Chander v. State, 68 (1997) DLT 257=1997 (42) DRJ 607, as also the case decided by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of PSEB v. Ashok Kumar, III (1999) CPJ 114. Before discussing these judgments, it is important to state that Hon''ble Supreme Court in the first and Delhi High Court in the third cited cases were dealing with criminal cases. Be that as it may, Hon''ble Supreme Court clearly held that, "before raising a presumption under Section 39 of the the Electricity Act that there is a dishonest obstruction by energy, the presence of a perfected artificial means which will render obstruction of energy possible has to be established." (emphasis supplied). In the present case, the ''perfected'' artificial means have been proved by the respondent-Board with the help of report from the ME Lab used by the appellant to decrease the reading of the meter by tampering with the figures of the meter. The judgment passed by the Hon''ble High Court (supra) even though it relates to proceeding under Section 379 of IPC, yet go on to hold, that if there has been dishonest obstruction of energy by way of tampering on discovery of tampered meters then the consumer will be held responsible. We again rely upon the report of the ME Lab to support the case of the respondent that they have been able to prove the illegal abstraction of energy by decreasing the reading of the meter to the detriment of the respondent-Board. Theft could be by taking/drawing electricity connection direct from the main line or otherwise. It appears as per report of ME Lab. that the appellant had ''perfected'' the art of tampering with the meter to ''decrease'' the reading to the benefit of the appellant and to the detriment of the PSEB. Theft is a theft, by whatever name one calls it. Intent was to deprive the benefit to the rightful owner. The case of the MPSEB v. Smt. Basantibai (supra), would not help appellant" for the simple reason that it was not a question of meter being faulted, this was a case of tampering with the meter with a view to decreasing the reading of the meter which is supported .by the finding / report of the ME Lab, hence this judgment also does not help the appellant. The reliance placed on the order passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (supra) also does not help the appellant as that was passed on the premise that the MCB glass was found to be fixed with M seal from outside, but in the instant case as per report of the Senior Engineer MCB hinges were sealed from outside and were not as per design of the Board.

THERE is no dispute that the old meter was installed but as per material on record brought by the appellant, as also in the cross-examination of Mr. N.S. Gill, Assistant Engineer, he clearly stated, "it was old Lab repaired meter duly attested and sealed".

IN view of above, the order passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, relied upon by the appellant does not help him. We have very carefully gone through the affidavit and cross-examination of the opposite parties, which is on record. What it boils down to, is the report of ME Lab, which remains unchallenged, and at the cost of repetition, one has to observe that there is no technical rebuttal either by way of literature or by way of oral evidence, challenging the report of the ME Lab, which is an independent laboratory. If in the aforementioned circumstances, the State Commission dismissed the complaint, we find that they have committed no error either of facts or law to call for our interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal, hence dismissed. As far as demand raised by the respondent is concerned, as per our order dated 31.5.2006, Rs. 3.5 lakh with interest accrued thereon was released in favour of the respondent and for the remaining amount there is Bank guarantee. The appellant is directed to pay the remaining amount within a period of 6 weeks from passing of this order failing which the respondent PSEB shall be free to invoke the Bank guarantee given by the appellant before this Commission. Appeal dismissed.