PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD vs Navinbhai K Bhadra

MRS. Vineeta Rai, Member-This revision petition has been filed by the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company 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 one Navinbhai K. Bhadra (hereinafter referred to as the ''Respondent'') who was the original complainant before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case according to the Petitioner are that the Respondent who was the owner of Bhadra Brass Industries, Jamnagar, Gujarat had a 5.0 Hp connection at 65, Digvijay Plot, Jamnagar, vide Consumer No. 87801508120. The premises of the Respondent was checked by a Jr. Engineer of the Petitioner/Company on 17.1.2005 and the electricity meter was packed and sent for laboratory inspection and a new meter was installed. Since the Respondents did not turn up on three dates for inspection, the inspection was carried out ex parte on 12.3.2005. The laboratory inspection revealed that both the terminal box and the metal meter box of the meter were tampered with, the meter top cover had a hole from which foreign particles could be inserted and scratches were found on digits wheels and discs. Thereafter, a supplementary bill amounting to Rs. 36,323.99p was issued by the Assessing Officer to the Respondent under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

THE Respondent denied that he was intentionally not present during the dates of inspection and stated that this was done deliberately in his absence without informing him. He challenged the supplementary bill of Rs. 36,323.99 as well as the notice for disconnection under Section 156 of the Indian Electricity Act. On the other hand, according to the Respondent, after the installation of the new meter, his electricity consumption had decreased, refuting therefore, the charges of theft made against him. Respondent accordingly filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking cancellation of the bill of Rs. 36,323.99 and seeking payment of Rs. 2,000 towards mental harassment and Rs. 1,000 as costs.

THE District Forum accepted the complaint by relying on the Respondent''s version and disputed the tampering of the meter and theft of electricity on the ground that in the checking-sheet of the Jr. Engineer who had sent the meter for inspection, there was no mention of a hole in the upper part of the meter from which foreign particles could be inserted. Further, the electricity consumption of the Respondent decreased after installation of the new meter confirming that there was no theft of electricity by the Respondent. The District Forum directed the Petitioner to cancel the supplementary bill of Rs. 36,324 and pay Rs. 1,500 towards mental harassment and Rs. 1,000 as costs to the Respondent.

AGGRIEVED by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which while upholding the order of the District Forum also dismissed the appeal on the grounds that issuing the supplementary bill on the basis of the laboratory report by the Petitioner is not the correct procedure. If there was suspicion of tampering, it should have been referred to the Electrical Inspector who after verifying the same could have issued a supplementary bill if so required. The relevant part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows: "We have perused the copy of the impugned order. It is suggested therefrom that while checking the meter installed at the premises of the respondent (original complainant) the meter was removed and taken for testing in the laboratory. During the laboratory testing it was found that theft was committed and supplementary bill for Rs. 36,307.60 came to be issued by the applicant (original opponent). Admittedly, at no point of time the meter was referred to the Electrical Inspector and the supplementary bill also came to be issued by the Board and not by the Electrical Inspector. The meter was removed from the premises of the complainant and sent for laboratory testing and it was found that theft was committed. In that case it was obligatory on the part of the applicant board to refer the meter to the Electrical inspector. It was not done in the present case. Supplementary bill could have been issued, if required by the Electrical Inspector only but in the instant case supplementary bill on the basis of the laboratory report has been issued by the applicant Board."

Hence the revision petition.

LEARNED Counsel for the parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Petitioner averred that the State Commission was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the grounds that it was obligatory on the part of the Petitioner to refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector. In support of his contention, he cited a ruling of the Hon''ble High Court of Gujarat in Executive Engineer, GEB v. Rohini Oil Mills, 1996 (2) GLH 55, wherein the Hon''ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: "It is the primary function of the Officers of the Gujarat Electricity Board, when during investigation on the spot it is noticed by them that some foul play was committed or that Electrical Meter was tampered with, to remove the Meter and to instal the new Meter and to examine such Meter in their laboratory."

FURTHER, as per Regulation 2.1.1 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code 85 Related Matters) Regulation, 2005 read with Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the licensee has been designated as the Assessing Officer for the purposes of assessing electricity charges in case of unauthorized use of electricity by tampering with the meter theft, etc. Therefore, the State Commission erred in holding that it was obligatory on the part of the Petitioner/company to refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector. The National Commission in its ruling in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Surat Singh, IV (2007) CPJ 18 (NC), has also clarified that reliance is to be given to a laboratory report over an inspection conducted by the executive engineer in such cases. Even on facts, the learned Fora below erred by observing that consumption of electricity following the change of the meter had gone down. In fact as per the consumption sheet filed in evidence before the District Forum the consumption had actually gone up three to five times giving further credence to the fact that the meter had been tampered with by the Respondent to his advantage. The revision petition, therefore, deserves to be accepted.

COUNSEL for Respondent, while reiterating his earlier version, submitted that the District Forum and the State Commission had on the basis of evidence which had both merit and credibility, agreed with his contention and the present revision petition has no merit and may be dismissed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for both parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

FROM the report of the laboratory which in evidence, it is clear that the meter was tampered with as per the following finding: "On dissecting the M.M.B. and T.B. PVC seals recovered from paper pack, joint found in the seal wire and the joint was hidden inside the female part of the seal. Hence both seals (T.B. and M.M.B.) found tampered. On opening the meter top cover a hole (as per sketch) found on the upper part of meter top cover from which foreign particles can be inserted inside the meter. In addition to this, scratches found on digits wheels and discs. Hence clear tampering found with the meter."

THE fact that the small hole on the top of the meter was not noted in the report of the Electrical Inspector, is by no means proof that the laboratory report is not correct. In fact, most of the tampering was detected inside the meter and was not, therefore, visible from the outside. Further, the National Commission in Punjab State Electricity Board (supra), has ruled in a case under similar circumstances that the evidence of MES laboratory report pertaining to tampering of meter is conclusive evidence even if such tampering had not been detected/noted by a Meter Reader or an Electrical Engineer.

WE also cannot agree with ruling of the State Commission that since the meter was not referred to the Electrical Inspector, the supplementary bill could not have been raised on the basis of the laboratory report. As per the regulations of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, it is the licensee which has been designated as Assessing Officer for the purposes of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and there is no other provision in the relevant statutes making it obligatory on the part of the Petitioner to refer the matter to Electrical Inspector who would then raise a supplementary bill, if required.

REGARDING the finding of the State Commission that the consumption of electricity following the installation of new meter had decreased, we find that this too is contrary to the acts produced before the District Forum. It is clear from the calculation sheet which is in evidence that after December, 2004 when the new meter was installed, the meter reading indicating the consumption of electricity went up from 302 to 1430 and further readings right up to December-January, 2006 indicated similar noticeable increases over past readings.

TAKING into account all the above facts, we have no option but to set aside the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is accepted with no order as to costs.