Madhya Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs Vinav Enterprises

THE present revision petition has been filed by the Superintending Engineer, Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in favour of Vinav Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent).

THE facts of the case, according to the Respondent who was the original complainant before the District Forum, are that the Respondent is a manufacturing industry for plastics for which it has a 50 H.P. electricity connection supply from the Petitioner for the last 16 years. THE bill for this power supply is around Rs.20,000/- per month. On 01.02.2002, as there was a sudden break of power supply, the wireman of the Respondent contacted the Petitioner/ Gujarat Electricity Board (G.E.B.) to seek remedial action. THE G.E.B. sent a wireman who during investigations broke open the seal of the meter box and informed that the meter was burnt. He, therefore, took away the burnt meter in sealed condition and sent it to the Meter Testing Laboratory for testing/inspection. A new meter was put in its place and bill from the new meter reading also came to be around Rs.20,000/- per month. THE burnt meter was inspected in the Laboratory in the presence of the representative of the Respondent and subsequently the Respondent was informed that the meter was tampered with and he had committed a theft of electricity for which he was given a bill for Rs.5,52,599/- for the period of six months prior to the date of checking as per the prescribed rules. His signatures were not taken either in the inspection sheet or in the MT Laboratory, nor was a panchnama prepared. Aggrieved by this action, Respondent represented to the Petitioner Company on the grounds that at the time when the meter was removed, none of these defects in the tampering were noted in the inspection sheet and that for a load of 50 H.P., Respondent could not have consumed electricity of more than Rs.20,000/- per month. But having received no response and because of disconnection of the electricity supply, he filed a complaint before the District Forum on the grounds of deficiency in service and seeking a caveat to declare the bills amount of Rs.5,52,599/- to be fake and illegitimate and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and any other relief that may be just and equitable. The Petitioner denied the above contentions and stated that the meter in the first instance was removed from the premises of the Respondent in the presence of the representative of the Respondent and subsequently also it was inspected in the Laboratory in the presence of the representative of the Respondent. The MT Laboratory report which is an independent finding clearly revealed that there was a hole on the top cover at the right hand side of the meter and some M-seal like substance was put on it to conceal the hole. Further, scratches were found on the meter which clearly indicate tampering. The MT Laboratory in its report gave a clear finding that the consumer had committed theft of electricity supply by tampering with the meter. In accordance with the rules, Petitioner sent a bill of Rs.5,52,599/- for the period of six months prior to date of checking as per prescribed formula to the Respondent.

The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint on the grounds that in the checking sheet prepared at the time of removal of the meter, it had not been recorded that there was a hole in the top cover of the meter even though admittedly the meter was in a burnt condition at the time of removal. Similarly, no panchnama was made and the signature of the consumer himself was not obtained on the inspection sheet. Further, since the bills from the old meter and after fixing the new meter were for a similar amount, this indicated that no theft of electricity was committed by Respondent. The District Forum, therefore, declared the bill issued by the Petitioner as illegal and cancelled the same.

AGGRIEVED by this order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission inter alia stating that apart from merits of the case since the bills issued to the complainant was of an amount of more than Rs.5 lakhs, the District Forum did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The State Commission, however, dismissed the appeal on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction as well as on merits. According to the State Commission, issue of limitation due to pecuniary jurisdiction is not important but the important point is that the Board had shown deficiency in its services by issuing the bill. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the following reasons for dismissing the appeal were given: The second argument is that when the meter was checked and tested in the laboratory of the opponent Board, at that time, one wireman of the complainant was present and checking was done in his presence and it was found that there was on hole on the upper side of the meter and this has been stated in detail in the report.

THIS argument of the appellant, are not accepted by us, because the wiremen was the representative of the complainant and he is not examined before the Forum and no application is given to call him as witness. Moreover, when the meter was taken away by the Board from the complainants factory, no panchnama of the meter was made, nor any note of it was made stating that there is a hole made on the upper part of the meter going downward on right hand side of the meter. In this respect, the advocate for the appellant had argued that, as the meter was burnt away and so hole was not visible. We do not accept this argument, because when the officers of the Opponent Board could see the small scratch made by knife in the laboratory, how they could not see the hole made on the upper part of the meter. So apparently it is clear that when the meter was taken away from the factory of the complainant, there was no case of theft. Hon. National Commission, in various judgments have decided that when there is no primary case for theft of electric supply, then the Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain such case. The learned Forum in his judgment have given cogent reasons in details, while allowing the complaint of the complainant. So in our opinion, it is not good to interfere with the said decision. Hence the present revision petition. Learned counsel for both parties were present and made oral submissions. Learned counsel for Petitioner stated that the tampering of the meter and committing of theft had been established by the detailed report of the MT Laboratory and under the circumstances the Petitioner was right in sending a bill for Rs.5,52,599/- and thereafter disconnecting the electricity. These actions cannot be construed as deficiency in service. Learned counsel for Petitioner cited a judgment of the National Commission in CESC Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sumita Pal 1997(2) CPR 92(NC) wherein it was held that if a prima facie conclusion of pilferage of electric energy has been established, then the electricity supply can be disconnected without notice. Further, nothing was done behind the back of the Respondent or without his knowledge because his representatives signatures were obtained both in the inspection sheet after the meter was found burnt and again in the MT Laboratory. Further, the fact that the hole in the meter was not detected during the inspection is well explained by the report of the MT Laboratory which stated that the hole was sought to be covered by an M-seal like substance and, therefore, was not visible. Regarding the important point of the complaint not being admissible before the District Forum on grounds of limitation of pecuniary jurisdiction, it was pointed out that the State Commission did not examine this on merits and dismissed the appeal in limine. Keeping in view these facts, the orders of the learned fora needs to be set aside.

COUNSEL for Respondent on the other hand reiterated that the learned Fora below were right in pointing out that the tampering found in the meter in the MT Laboratory are suspect because these defects were not at all noted at the time of the detailed inspection and the tampering etc. were noted in the MT Laboratory after the meter had been in the possession of the Petitioner for about 6 months. Apart from this, the electricity bill of the Respondent had consistently been around Rs.20,000/- per month except at the end of the financial year i.e. in March when the bill was for a higher amount of Rs.41,410/- and that at a sanctioned load of 50 H.P., it is not possible to consume electricity amounting to Rs.5,52,599/- for a period of 6 months. Respondent also stated that the State Commission and the District Forum fully appreciated the lacunae in the contention of the Petitioner and had rightly decided in favour of the Respondent. We have heard learned counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record.

IT is not in dispute that the burnt meter was removed in the presence of the representative of the Respondent and that the meter as per the statutory requirements was sent to the MT Laboratory for testing where again it was inspected with the knowledge of the Respondent by obtaining his representatives signature. Under these circumstances, the finding of the learned fora below is not correct because nothing was done behind Respondents back or without his knowledge. The report of the MT Laboratory is an independent and detailed report and it is unequivocally stated in this report after due inspection that there was enough evidence of tampering of the meter leading to the conclusion that it was with a view to commit theft of electricity. There is no reason to disbelieve the finding of the MT Laboratory as being deficient or inaccurate. Under these circumstances, the learned fora below erred in not giving due credence to this Report and rejecting the appeal on the grounds that there was a discrepancy in this departmental report and the earlier report which did not mention the hole, visual inspection by a lineman of the Petitioner Company cannot be more reliable than a scientific report of the MT Laboratory. Further, as pointed out by the Petitioner, it is reasonable to conclude that the hole was camouflaged by putting an M-seal like substance over it. We also agree that as held by this Commission in CESE Ltd.(supra) that in case there is prima facie conclusion of pilferage of electricity energy on the ground that the meter was tampered by artificial means, the electricity supply company can legally disconnect the electricity connection and this cannot be construed as deficiency in service. Therefore, looking into the totality of all the circumstances, we do not agree with the findings of the learned fora which are set aside. The revision petition is allowed with no order as to costs.