H.S.E.B. vs Krishan Dev

THE Haryana State Electricity Board appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar allowing the complaint of the respondent-consumer.

THE respondents admittedly carry on the business of the manufacture of surgical equipment in the name and style of M/s Doctor Surgical Works at Hisar. THEir establishment had the facility of an electricity connection for which they had been regularly paying the bills raised against them. However, on the 27th of February, 1993 some officials of the appellant-Board inspected the premises of the said factory and it was the complainant''s case that they prepared a false report alleging that three of the four seals of the meter box were in a tampered condition. It was the stand that the effective seals of the meter were admittedly intact and there was not the least evidence of any theft or abstraction of electricity. However, an arbitrary penalty of Rs. 75,000/- was forthwith imposed on the respondents and further the power was also disconnected. On the very date of 27th of February, 1993, alleging heavy financial loss owing to the arbitrary action of the Board, the relief of quashing the penalty and of awarding Rs. 30,000/- as compensation was made. The appellants in defending the complaint raised preliminary objections, to which reference now becomes unnecessary because they were never pressed before us. On merits the case set up was that the Executive Engineer, M.P. Division alongwith other officials checked the premises and detected two seals of the C.T chamber and one lower seal of the meter cover as missing or removed. The case was that the equipment being within the reach of the consumer, he was duty bound to preserve the same in the original condition. It was also the case that at the time of the inspection report, some representative of the owners was present, but he had refused to sign the same and, therefore, the impugned action of penalty and disconnection was taken forthwith.

The respondents filed a replication reiterating their stand firmly and highlighting the fact that in view of the admitted intact seals, no theft of power at all was possible and consequently no question of penalty or disconnection was justified.

DURING the course of the trial before the District Forum, the parties agreed to the appointment of Shri Yoginder Singh, Executive Engineer of the Haryana State Marketing Board, Hisar as a Local Commissioner who after inspection rendered his report Annexure A-1. Relying upon the same and following the observations in II (1991) CPJ 38 ''Haryana State Electricity Board v. Dinesh Kumar'' and I (1992) CPJ 127 S.D.O. A.E.E. City Division, Hisar v. M/s. Hotel Palki, Hisar'' the District Forum allowed the complaint and set aside the penalty and directed restoration of power on payment of the other out-standing dues. Mr. Bhupinder Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant had attempted to argue that admittedly one or two seals of the equipment were missing or damaged and purporting to place reliance on instructions Nos. 104 and 105, it was contended that the imposition of penalty and disconnection forthwith was justifiable on such sketchy materials alone.

WE are not at all impressed by the aforesaid submission, which seems to be neither tenable on the basis of statutory instructions nor on principle and precedent What may first be noticed is the fact that admittedly the impugned inspection report did not bear the signatures of either the consumer or any one of his representative. Nor is it the appellant''s case that the said report was at any time served upon the consumer or any opportunity afforded to him. That being so, the whole action seems to be patently violative of the statutory conditions Nos. 24(A)(ii) (3) & 24-A(v)(i) duly notified the appellant-Board itself. The matter does not require elaboration because it is completely covered by our decision in 1992 (2) CPC. 273 ''H.S.E.B. Panchkula v. M/s. Anoop Stone Crusher,. Therein the aforesaid instructions were construed in depth and it was held as follows: "In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the answer to the question posed at the out-set is rendered in the affirmative and it is held that these statutory conditions aforesaid expressly mandate the service of the memorandum of inspection upon the consumer of electric energy before any adverse action can be taken against him."

It is somewhat patent that the aforesaid ratio concludes the matter against the appellant. However, altogether apart from the above, it is significant that the appellants, own officials in the inspection note did not even find as a fact that there was any theft of electricity. All that has been sketchily held in the report is that an attempt to commit theft could not be ruled out. It is a well settled ad-age of the law that mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof, and the conjectural ground that the possibility of an attempt to commit theft could not be ruled out can be no foundation for summarily levying a penalty to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-. In this context, one may as well recall the observations in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Dinesh Kumar (Supra) as follows: "We are unable to accede to the aforesaid submission. It might well be that a consumer of electricity is bound to maintain the electric meter in his premises in good condition. Yet from that it does not follow that a merely broken or damaged glass of the said meter would necessarily raise a conclusive presumption of theft of electricity. At the very highest it can be one of the many factors which may lead to the conclusion of the abstraction of electric energy. The District Forum in paragraph 10 of the order under appeal adverted to this aspect in some detail. We find no vitiating error in their line of reasoning and are inclined to confirm the same."

Yet again in ''S.D.O. A.E.E. City Division, Hisar v. M/s. Hotel Palki, Hisar'' (Supra), it has been observed that a mere broken seal of a meter is not a conclusive proof of theft of electrical energy. Equally, we find nothing in instructions Nos. 104 and 105 to which reference was made by Mr. Bhupinder Singh which can advance his case and in fact the provisions thereof seem to boom-rang on his stand because they at the highest speak of imposition of some resealing charges in the context of missing or broken seals.

ON merits the learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Gobinder Singh rightly relied on the report of the Local Commissioner Shri Yoginder Singh, wherein it was firmly opined that the crucial seal of the meter had remained intact which precluded all possibility of any abstraction or theft of electricity.

TO conclude, we would affirm the order of the District Forum and dismiss this appeal with costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.