PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SURAT SINGH

DESPITE repeated services, the respondent/complainant has not remained present. Lastly, direct service was also issued but the complainant refused to accept the same.

THESE Revision Petitions are filed against the judgment and order dated 25.4.2000 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, in Appeal Nos. 1310/1998 and 1333/1998 by which the State Commission dismissed the Appeal No.1333/98 filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board, confirmed the order dated 27.10.98 passed by the District Forum, Amritsar in complaint No.772 of 1998 and partly allowed the Appeal No.1310/1998 filed by the Complainant for enhancement of the compensation. The District Forum and the State Commission dealt with the matter as if they were deciding a criminal case and observed that where there is allegation of theft of electricity, the Electricity Board has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Complainant has committed the theft. It is also observed that the allegation of theft being penal in nature amounts to criminal offence and, hence, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, is heavily cast on the Electricity Board. Learned Counsel Mr.Gulati, appearing for the Electricity Board, contended that the aforesaid findings recorded by the State Commission and the District Forum are without application of mind to the fact that the District Forum or the State Commission was not trying the criminal offence. The matter ought to have been decided on the basis of pre-ponderance of probability, which is the yardstick for deciding the civil dispute. In our view, the submission is justified. The District Forum or the State Commission were not trying the criminal offence or criminal appeal, but were deciding a dispute arising out of issuance of bill demanding an amount of Rs.1,39,050/- from the Complainant on the ground of pilferage of electricity. It is to be reiterated that the Consumer Fora are exercising Civil Court"s jurisdiction and the cases are to be decided on the basis of the evidence which is brought on record and preponderance of probability is the criteria for deciding the matters.

THEREFORE , we have to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence which is brought on record. The District Forum and the State Commission have relied upon the evidence of the Executive Engineer as well as the S.D.O. It is true that the aforesaid evidence reveal that the Executive Engineer visited the place before six months and the meter was found intact. Similarly, the Meter Reader has not detected any pilferage.

AS against this, there is an evidence of the MES Laboratory 17.7.98 which reads as under: "Account No.MS 199 Today dated 17.07.98 one three phase meter packed in card box is brought by Jasbir Singh JE Kot Mit Singh vide challan No.SPL 1 dated 17.07.1998. This had two No.Paper Seals Serial No.019881 019882 dated 14.07.1998 on it. Signature of the Sr.XEN Enforcement Taran Taran, S.D.O. Kot Mitt Singh and Consumer Representative were on these paper Seal Sh. Surat Singh had personally verified the signature of consumer representative Paramjit Singh. These two paper seals were OK. Sd/- Consumer . Sr.XEN ENF. S.D.O. Rep. Taran Taran ME ASR Kot Mit Singh After removing the paper seals meter was taken out from card board box and its particulars as under: Make:M and I Meter No.703667 Branch No.ASR-21627 Capacity 3* 100/5 Reading. 281825 Its body had two red seals No.0430411 and 0430412 upper and lower side which were OK. Its body having four Aluminum seals which were OK. Two simple paper seals dt.16.6.94 on the body and joint were OK. Two paper Seals dt.20.4.97 of S.D.O. Kot Mit Singh on lower and upper of the glass were found torn. These were torn to fix red seals. Meter was checked after breaking four No. lead seals and two No. paper seals. By opening the internal clamp of the meter cover glass was removed that there were signs of tampering on the upper portion of glass. At the same spot of the meter the colour was missing from the inside edge of the collar. The sings of tampering and scratches are also existing on meter plate. The signs of tempering and scratches were also on digits of the meter. From the above it is proved that after tampering the glass consumer was approaching the digits and altering the index to decrease the readings. The some broken pieces of glass (kinke) and some puttine was found inside the meter. The same were packed in a packet along with seals. These were kept in meter and meter was packed in card box. Two seals 019889 and 0198890 dt.17.7.98 were fixed on the card box. These paper seals are signed by Sr. XEN Enforcement, Taran Taran, SDO ME ASR, SDO Kot Mit Singh and Rep. Of consumer Sh. Surat Singh. Meter was returned to Jasbir Singh, JE, Kot Mit Singh vide Challan No" Dt.17.7.98. Refused to sign Sd/- Consumer Rep. Sr.XEN ENF SDO ME SOD Taran Amritsar Kot Mit Singh"

Considering the aforesaid meter testing report, it is apparent that the meter was tampered, scratches were existing on the meter plate and also on the digits of the meter and it reveals that consumer was approaching the digits and altering the index to decrease the readings. This would mean that there was pilferage of the electricity by the complainant. In these set of circumstances it cannot be said that as the meter reader has not noticed it, the complainant has not committed pilferage of the electricity. It is quite possible that meter reader might have noted only units. It is also possible that when the Executive Engineer visited the site before six months and at the time there might not be any tampering. That would not mean that the report of MES Laboratory cannot be relied upon. Before six months, it is quite possible that there may not be pilferage, but thereafter pilferage is apparent from the MES report. The meter was checked by the ME Lab in the presence of the representative of the Complainant.

FOR working out the suitable compensation, in such cases, the PSEB has issued Circular No.45 of 1997 dated 17.12.1997 and on that basis the bill was issued.

IN these set of circumstances, the Revision Petitions filed by the PSEB require to be allowed and are allowed. The impugned order passed by the State Commission confirming the order passed by the District Forum and partly allowing the appeal filed by the Complainant, is set aside. The complaint stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.