PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Parkash Singh

IT is an appeal against the order dated 28.12.1998 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was running his ice factory with an electric connection bearing account No. MS-50. Senior XEN, Enforcement-II inspected the factory of the complainant on 19.6.1998 and found that collar of the meter glass was tampered with. He also found scratches on the meter counter and plate. The meter was removed in the presence of the representative of the complainant. It was packed and sealed in a cardboard box duly signed by the representative of the complainant. Senior XEN and other officials went to the M.E. Lab on 22.6.1998 after removing the meter on 19.6.1998. SDO, M.E. Lab reported that the meter was tampered with by tampering the window glass of the meter and some pieces of glass and adhesive were found inside the body of the meter at the time of testing the meter inside the M.E. Lab on 22.6.1998. A penalty of Rs. 1,57,641/- was imposed upon the complainant vide memo dated 22.6.1998. The complainant did not admit the validity of this demand. He sought the following reliefs from the District Forum: (i) Direction to the appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) to withdraw the said penalty of Rs. 1,57,641/-. (ii) Any other relief.

The opposite party appeared and filed the written statement wherein locus standi of the complainant to file the complaint was disputed. It was admitted that Senior XEN, Enforcement-II had inspected the factory of the complainant on 19.6.1998 and found the complainant indulging in theft of energy by tampering with the meter. It was also admitted that the meter was removed, packed and sealed at the spot on 19.6.1998 and was sent to the M.E. Lab on 22.6.1998 for testing and the In-charge of the M.E. Lab found that the complainant had lifted the clamp of inner side of glass and had replaced the window glass and also found that the window glass was not the glass which had been originally placed because the dimensions and capacity of the glass were different as compared to the original glass. It was then stated that some pieces of glass and potein and adhesive were also found inside the body of the meter. Scratches were also found on the meter counter and index plate. On that basis penalty/compensation of Rs. 1,57,641/- was demanded from the complainant. It was ultimately prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs. After hearing the arguments and after having gone through the evidence on the file, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum and the District Forum set aside the impugned penalty/compensation of Rs. 1,57,641/- imposed by the opposite party. It was further directed that deposited amount, if any, be refunded with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till the day of payment. Hence this appeal.

We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have gone through the record of the case minutely.

THE meter was found to be tampered with by the officers of the PSEB, resume of which is given as under: "THE consumer had lifted the clamp of inner side of glass and replaced the window glass with some potein of different colour and the window glass was not the glass which had been originally placed because the dimensions and capacity of the glass was different as compared to the original glass. Some pieces of glass and potein and adhesive were inside the body of the meter. Scratches were also on the index plate and figures."

Shri Baldev Raj Singh Mahal, Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement-II, Tarn Taran, who inspected the meter of the complainant on 9.6.1998 stated in his affidavit as under: "1. That in this case, the premises of the consumer bearing A/c. No. MS-50 was checked by me on 19.6.1998 and during the course of inspection, it was found that collar of meter glass was tampered with and there were scratches on the meter counter and plate. Inspection was made in the presence of the representative of consumer and I prepared report on the spot in the ECR which assigned by me and the representative of consumer in token of its correctness. Meter was removed and packed in the card board and paper sealed which was signed by me and the representative of the consumer. THE contents of the report may be read as part of this affidavit."

In the report Ex. R-1, referred to above in the statement of Shri Baldev Raj Mahal, Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement-II, Tarn Taran, it has been stated in Punjabi language, the translation of which reads as under: "On inspecting the meter, it was found that the collar of the upper portion of the meter clamp was tampered with and scratches were found on the meter counter plate." Shri Gurmukh Singh Randhawa, SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Incharge of the M.E. Lab, Amritsar, stated in his affidavit as under: "1. That in this case, the meter packed in the card board and duly signed by the Inspecting Officer as also the representative of the consumer was received in the M.E. Lab which was opened in the presence of the consumer''s representative and tested/checked by me on 22.6.1998 and it was found that the meter has been tampered with by tampering with the window glass of meter so far as even the pieces of glass and adhesive were found inside the body of the meter. Detailed report was prepared on the spot in the presence of the representative of the consumer who signed the same admitting it to be correct. It also bears my signature and is correct which may be read as a part of this affidavit."

Both Shri Baldev Raj Singh Mahal, Senior Executive Engineer and Shri Gurmukh Singh, SDO were cross-examined. No dent could be found in their statements given by way of affidavits. Shri Baldev Raj Singh Mahal, Senior Executive Engineer, has specifically stated, when cross-examined, that the signs of lifting of clamp were visible with naked eye and half portion of the top side of the collar of the meter was tampered with. District Forum allowed the complaint without any cogent reasons. District Forum has stated in its order that Shri Baldev Raj Singh Mahal, Senior Executive Engineer and Shri Gurmukh Singh, SDO, PSEB, aforesaid were not able to explain what was the original size and make of the meter glass and what was the difference between the original and duplicate glass affixed on the meter and that they could not differentiate the colour and quality of the potein on the meter. District Forum also presumed that the complainant could not have approached the meter glass and digital system plate and collar of the meter when the seals of the MCB on the glass of the meter were found intact. The two officers of the PSEB mentioned above, one of whom is the person who inspected the meter on 19.6.1998 at the spot and removed it at the spot and sealed in a proper manner and sent to the M.E. Lab and Shri Gurmukh Singh, SDO, PSEB, is the officer who inspected/tested the meter in the M.E. Lab. Shri Baldev Raj Singh Mahal, Senior Executive Engineer, has categorically stated that on checking the premises of the complainant he found that the collar of the meter glass was tampered with and there were scratches on the meter counter and plate and he had inspected the meter in the presence of the representative of the complainant and had prepared the report on the spot in the ECR which was signed by him and the representative of the complainant in token of correctness of the report. He had removed the meter and packed it in cardboard box and paper sealed, which was signed by him and the representative of the complainant. On the other hand, Shri Gurmukh Singh, SDO, who had inspected/tested the meter in the M.E. Lab has categorically stated that the meter was packed in the cardboard and was duly signed by the Inspecting Officer and was also by the representative of the complainant which was opened in the presence of the consumer''s representative and tested/checked the same on 22.6.1998 and it was found as under: "The meter had been tampered with by tampering with the window glass of the meter so far as pieces of glass and adhesive were inside the meter. The detailed report was made in the presence of the consumer''s representative who signed the same admitting it to be correct."

It is not denied or proved otherwise by any evidence on the record that the meter was not inspected at the spot in the presence of the representative of the consumer and that it was not examined in the M.E. Lab in the presence of the representative of the consumer. Shri Baldev Raj Singh Mahal, Senior Executive Engineer, when cross-examined, has categorically stated that signs of lifting of clamp were visible with the naked eye and half portion of the top side of the collar of the meter was tampered with. It may be mentioned here that no enmity or any bias was alleged against these two officers of the PSEB by the complainant.

DISTRICT Forum has again erred in law and on facts in holding that the inspecting officer did not comply with Instruction No. 115(III) of the Sales Manual as he did not seal and pack the two meters as required by the provision of the Sales Manual. Instruction No. 115(III), which reads as under: "Reading of the old and the check meters should be got initiated from the consumer both at the time of commencement and expiry of the text period (which may last up to 7 days) so that he may not be able to contest it at a later stage. In case the original meter is found to be incorrect as compared to the check meter, the accounts of the consumer should be adjusted as provided in Clause 14(f) of the Abridged Conditions of Supply."

A bare perusal of the abovesaid Instruction No. 115(III) makes it clear that the check meter has to be installed only in the cases where the meter is defective i.e., either running slow or fast or due to some other internal fault of the meter and not in the cases where meter is tampered with. The present being a case of a tampered meter, it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of the abovesaid instructions. Instruction No. 201 of the Sales Manual reads as under: "Instruction No. 201-Theft of Energy-Remedial Measures Under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy or where artificial means or means not authorized by Board exist for abstraction, consumption or use of energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code."

A bare perusal of the abovesaid instructions makes it clear that if artificial means or means not authorized by the Board exist for abstraction of energy then theft of energy is deemed to have been committed. The site reports and the evidence tendered by the PSEB officers as has been stated above was sufficient to arrive at a prima facie conclusion that the theft had taken place. Again the District Forum has misinterpreted instruction No. 104 while holding that the SDO, M.E. Lab did not act within the ambit of Instruction No. 104 of the Sales Manual while observing that the SDO, M.E. Lab found all the seals intact before opening the meter. The meter was already sealed when it was taken into possession by Shri Baldev Raj Singh Mahal, Senior Executive Engineer, at the spot on 19.6.1998. It is only on 22.6.1998 that SDO, M.E. Lab found all the seals intact before opening the meter. He is referring to seals, which were affixed by Shri Baldev Raj Singh Mahal, Senior Executive Engineer, when putting the meter in the cardboard box. It is well-settled by now that the report of the M.E. Lab is final until and unless it is proved otherwise. We do not find either any evidence or any other reason to disbelieve the report of the M.E. Lab, according to which, it was found that the meter was tampered with. Even the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board, IV (1998) SLT 182=1998 (3) JT 84, has observed that no notice is required to be served upon the consumer in case of theft of energy. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Board. It has not been proved by any cogent evidence on the record that the facts stated in the report regarding tampering with the meter were wrongly recorded, particularly when, both inspections were made in the presence of the representatives of the complainant. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 28.12.1998 of the District Forum and the complaint is ultimately dismissed; however, without any order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Appeal allowed.