PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs ASHOK KUMAR

PUNJAB State Electricity Board challenges order of District Forum, Amritsar dated August 3,1998 passed on the complaint of Ashok Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. S. Kumar Woollen Spinning Mills, Amritsar. Direction was given to the appellant Board to pay costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant and to restore the electric connection at the premises of the complainant before August 11, 1998 while setting aside recovery of Rs. 1,69,611/- as penalty imposed by the Board on the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was also ordered to be paid to the complainant by the Board.

THE complainant was having electric connection No. MS 133 at the factory premises. Regularly bills issued were being paid. On June 19,1998, Sr. Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board in the absence of the complainant inspected the premises and disconnected the electric connection on the allegation that theft of electricity was being committed. On that very day, penalty of Rs. 1,69,611/- was imposed. Alleging disconnection and imposition of penalty to be illegal, complaint was filed before the District Forum claiming different reliefs. THE Electricity Board submitted the version, inter alia, admitting the fact of disconnection on account of commission of theft. On inspection of the electric meter installed at the premises of the complainant, glass of MCB was found to be fixed with M. Seal from outside. It appeared to be tampered with. On opening the M. Seal, broken pieces of glass were found from the box. On further checking, glass of the electric meter was also found tampered with from upper side. Some signs of tampering on meter plate as well as the digits were also observed in the form of scratches. In the presence of Raghbir Singh, Electrical Supervisor of the complainant, the meter was taken off, sealed and sent to M.E. Lab, Verka for test. On the same day i.e. June 19, 1998, it was tested and on the report of the M.E. Lab, the case of theft was found and the connection was disconnected raising the demand as stated above. This was in accordance with circular issued by the Board No. 45/97. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents on the basis of which the impugned order was passed. District Forum held that from the Inspection as well as M.E. Lab Report, the Electricity Board had failed to establish that it was a case of theft. THE disconnection was held to be illegal and the necessary relief as stated above was granted. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Advocate for the Electricity Board after referring to the Spot Inspection Report as well as ME. Lab Report re- iterated the stand of the Electricity Board that it was a case Of theft and the demand was legal. The fact that it was found so often that there were scratches on the glass as well as digit plates on the, repaired meters which were put to re-fuse, a caution was given to the officers of the Electricity Board in this respect, in their D.O. No. 40481 issued by Er. K.S. Gill (Operation Border), Punjab State Electricity Board, Amritsar dated April 17, 1998. Suitable instructions were given to the checking officers to keep in view the aforesaid facts thoroughly before actually declaring cases of thefts. In spite of the above, the present case is to be decided on its own facts as established from the evidence produced. At the outset, it may be stated that the evidence is to be scanned in two parts. The first part relates to observations made on the spot with respect to the condition of MCB and the second part relates to the condition of the meter which is installed in the aforesaid MCB (Board). Shri B.S. Sekhon, Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement III, Amritsar submitted his affidavit on behalf of the Electricity Board with respect to the condition of the MCB as well as the meter found. On the spot inspection, he found the seals of the MCB intact. However, glass of the MCB was found to the fixed with adhesive material. Some pieces of broken glass were found from inside the meter as stated by him during cross-examination. Assuming for the sake of argument that such observations were correct with regard to the condition of MCB, that per se would not show tampering of the meter installed therein, more so, when the seals of the Board MCB were found to be intact. It cannot be demonstrated otherwise that even if glass is fixed with adhesive, the meter could be approached from such a glass. The adhesive was found inside the MCB which would indicate that from outside the glass was not tampered. The District Forum rightly observed that when MCB seals were found to be intact, no presumption of tampering with the meter by the complainant could be raised.

With respect to the condition of the meter as found after opening the MCB, B.S. Sekhon stated that there were signs of tampering of the meter glass from inside. There also appeared to be tampering of meter name plate and meter digit. He admitted that he had not checked the meter prior to June 19, 1998. No material was produced by the Electricity Board about the condition of the meter when it was installed indicating receipt of meter by the complainant at their premises without any tampering. The Electricity Board''s memo dated April 17, 1998 hence gets importance in cases where there is no evidence produced by the Electricity Board about correct and un-tampered meter installed at the premises of the consumer. Further, reliance was placed on the affidavit of S. Gurmukh Singh, In- charge M.E. Laboratory. During cross- examination what he stated was that he found signs of theft of energy in the meter because there was possibility of theft because the colour of the meter was lifted which was on the upper side. There appeared a gap in the glass in such a condition that a person who is interested in theft of energy could insert wire inside the meter and tamper with the digits. He also admitted that he had not tested the meter prior to June 19,1998. He also did not test the meter as to whether it was slow running. He was not informed that the Board had imposed penalty for slow running of the meter. Since the Electricity Board did not rule out the possibility of installation of meter in the same condition as it was found, no presumption of commission of theft can be raised.

LEARNED Counsel for the Electricity Board has referred to the decision of the Commission in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Anil Suri Proprietor, 1999 (1) CPC 598, and has argued that in the case of theft, no prior notice for disconnection was required to be served. The case of theft in that case was held to be established. One of the factors taken into consideration was M.E. Laboratory Report reporting tampering of the meter seals. Thus, this case is not helpful in deciding the present case as in the present case, meter seals were not found tampered. The other case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Electricity Board is of this Commission in Original Complaint No. 34 of 1998, M/s. Emdet Engineers Private Limited v. Punjab State Electricity Board, decided on January 14,1999. Again the ratio of the decision aforesaid cannot be applied to the case in hand. Apart from the tampering with the meter, it was noticed that there was melted rubber inside the meter indicating tampering of the glass and tampering of the digits. Since no case of theft; on the material produced, was made out, disconnection of the electricity without any notice is held to be deficiency in rendering service entitling the complainant to compensation as well as refund of the amount illegally collected. For the reasons stated above, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.