PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs VIJAY KUMAR

THE District Forum, Sangrur vide its order dated June 24, 1992 in Complaint No. 23 of 1992 directed the opposite-parties-Punjab State Electricity Board not to recover the penalty amount of Rs. 23,990/- demanded by them vide letter dated 18.11.1991 from the complainant for his alleged theft of electricity and directed them to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant and to pay Rs. 220/- as litigation expenses to him in addition thereto. THE oppositeparties before the District Forum have challenged that order before this Commission.

SINCE we are inclined to affirm the order under appeal, it is sufficient to notice the relevant facts of the case. Vijay Kumar, complainant -respondent who is the owner of ''Atta Chaki'' at Malerkotla was the recipient of the electric supply from the appellants-Board for the last about seven years. It is alleged that on 18.8.1991, the Flying Squad unit of P.S.E.B. checked the meter connection at the aforesaid premises of the complainant and at that time all the seals on the meter were found to be in order. The case of the complainant is that on 6.11.1991, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Flying Squad of P.S.EB., Sangrur again visited his premises and declared it a theft case due to increase in the consumption of electricity after affixing the paper seal on the meter and he disconnected his electric connection without any notice to him as required under the statutory rules. It is alleged that the opposite-parties demanded Rs. 23,990/- on account of penalty from him in pursuance of the report of the Flying Squad, Sangrur dated 18.8.1991. Aggrieved by the aforesaid demand by the opposite-parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance. On notice being issued, the opposite-parties took-up certain preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the District Forum, which were not at all pressed before us and therefore do not deserve notice now. On merits, it was conceded that the Flying Squad (A.E.E.), P.S.E.B., Phagwara checked the meter of the complainant on 18.8.91 and paper seq" was affixed on the meter glass and therefore, the Flying Squad again inspected his premises on 6.11.1991 and found increase in electric consumption and that after affixing the paper seal on the meter it was declared to be a theft case of electric energy. It was alleged that the meter was removed and at that time some scratches were found on the figures and the figures were found upset showing tempering with the meter glass and reversing meter reading and that subsequently, a notice was issued to the complainant to make payment of the amount of Rs. 23,990/- as penalty assessed according to the commercial circular No. 48/85 dated 19.6.1985 issued by the P.S.E.B. The complainant in his replication reiterated his locus-standias a consumer and the patent deficiency in the service provided by the appellants. On merits, the stand in the written statement of the oppositeparties was meticulously controverted on each and every ground. In support of his case, the complainant placed on record certain documents while the opposite-parties filed affidavits of Jahangir Singh Malli (A.E.E.), Flying Squad, Sangrur and Jaspal Gupta (A.E.E.), P.S.E.B., Malerkotla in support of their case.

The District Forum in its considered order under appeal regretfully took pointed notice of the fact that the opposite-parties had no doubt filed the affidavits of their officials namely Jahangir Singh Jaspal Gupta to show that the meter glass had been tempered with but the report dated 18.8.1991 made by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Flying Squad, Phagwara had not been produced on the file and that in the absence of that report, no finding could be arrived at to the effect that the complainant had tempered with the meter glass or was indulging in the theft of electric energy. It held that the oppositeparties had produced meter in the Court, which was removed from the site on 18.8.1991 and on its examination, no scratches were found in the figures nor any figure had been upset. The clear finding was that a bare look at the chart filed by the parties shows variation in the consumption from month to month and that therefore, the mere fact that there was increase in consumption of electric energy found on 18.8.1991 itself, was not conclusive proof of the fact that it was due to theft of electric energy allegedly committed by the complainant upto that date. Finally, the District Forum took the view that from the breaking of the seal of the meter, a presumption of theft could hardly be raised. Consequently, the complaint was allowed and the payment of Rs. 23,990/- was directed to be deleted from the bill.

MR. D.S. Brar, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties-appellants had ably presented his case but had been unable to dislodge the impecceable findings of the District Forum. It was sought to be contended that the appellants were justified in creating a demand of Rs. 23,990/-as a result of penalty and disconnecting the electric connection of'' Atta Chaki'' of the complainant-respondent, who was found to have stolen electricity and tempering with the meter. It was submitted that the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.S.E.B., Phagwara had checked the meter of the respondent on 18.8.1991 and it was suspected that the respondent was indulging in theft of electric energy and a paper seal was affixed on the meter glass and later on it was further found that the figures of the meter were upset. The submissions of the learned Counsel are not borne out by the record and has been apparently made under some mis-apprehension. When the learned Counsel for the appellants was pin-pointedly questioned as to why the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Flying Squad was not placed on the record. He had nothing to reply to this querry. The proceedings conducted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Flying Squad were the basis for taking action against the respondent but those were intentionally withheld by the appellants. In the circumstances, a presumption could be raised that had the appellants produced that record, the same would have gone against them. The appellants placed reliance on the alleged scratches found on the figures of the meter but the District Forum on its examination found that there was no scratches on the figures nor any figure was upset. Once it is held as above, the very foundation of the argument on behalf of the appellants in any way crumbles to the ground. In the circumstances, we are in agreement with the finding of the District Forum that the respondent was not indulging in theft of electric energy and the demand raised by the appellants vide impugned notice dated 18.11.1991 was not sustainable. In an order of affirmance, it is unnecessary to traverse the same ground again and it suffices to say that we confirm the order under appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellants then casually contended that the compensation awarded to the complainants was too excessive. We are unable to accept this contention. The District Forum has set out valid and convincing reasons for awarding Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainants and we concur with its view. No other point was urged.

IN the result, we confirm the order of the District Forum and dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.