RADHEY SHYAM vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

-RADHEY Shyam, appellant was holding electric connection bearing account No. BB87/0506. He was running the shop to earn his livelihood. The old meter was removed on 4. 9. 2006 which was replaced with an electronic meter. Thereafter the appellant received the notice dated 28. 6. 2007 demanding an amount of Rs. 37,932 on the basis of test report dated 25. 6. 2006 of the M. E. Lab. The demand is illegal. Hence the appellant filed a complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short the ''district Forum'' ).

THE respondents filed the written statement and alleged that electric connection of the appellant was inspected on 4. 9. 2006 in the presence of Bablu son of Raghu Nath, representative of the complainant. It was found that the said electric connection was having the connected load of 6. 119 K. W. against the sanctioned load of 4. 40 K. W. After inspection, the meter of the appellant was removed which was packed in a cardboard. It was sealed with the paper seal in the presence of Bablu. He had also put his signatures on the paper seal. Thereafter the meter was sent to the M. E. Lab through Pooran Chand, J. E. on 4. 9. 2006. Bablu was also asked to be present in the M. E. Lab but the complainant or his representative failed to paper in the M. E. Lab. Therefore, the meter was not checked on that day. Final notice was given to the appellant on 23. 6. 2006 for appearance in the M. E. Lab on 25. 6. 2007. The appellant again failed to appear. It was further pleaded that the electric meter was taken out of the sealed meter box. The paper seals were intact. It was tested in the M. E. Lab. Two M. E. seals were found to be tampered with and it was running on single phase. Thereafter the meter was checked on single phase accucheck set on connected load of 3. 16 K. W. The meter was found running slow by 1. 41%. It was concluded that the consumer used to control the consumption by reversing the reading of the meter by tampering with the figures after tampering with the M. E. seals and uprooting the ultrasonic welding of the meter in order to commit theft. Accordingly, the demand notice for any amount of Rs. 37,932 was sent to the appellant on 28. 6. 2007. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 18. 2. 2008 upheld the version of the respondents and dismissed the complaint.

HENCE the appeal. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that no checking was made on 4. 9. 2006. The meter was not checked in the presence of the appellant or his representative, and, therefore, the demand is illegal.

SUBMISSIONS have been considered. The meter was checked by the respondents on 4. 9. 2006 in the presence of Bablu son of Raghu Nath, representative of the complainant. Notice was given to the appellant for appearing in the M. E. Lab on 4. 9. 2006 at 3. 30 p. m. After the appellant failed to appear, the date was extended and then a notice dated 23. 6. 2007 was served on the appellant for appearing in the M. E. Lab on 25. 6. 2007 and on 25. 6. 2007, the appellant again failed to appear. Since the notice was served on the appellant, therefore, non-appearance of the appellant or his representative in the M. E. Lab is due to his fault and not due to the fault of the respondent.

THE M. E. Lab report has been considered. It clearly reveals that there was tampering with the M. E. seals. The internal mechanism of the meter was also tampered by which the meter reading was put in reversal gear. Therefore, a clear cut case of theft has been proved.

IN this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the National Commission reported as Punjab State Electricity Board v. Surat Singh, IV (2007) CPJ 18 (NC)=2007 (3) Con. LT 342, in which the Hon''ble National Commission was pleased to hold that the theft of electric energy is not to be examined like in criminal cases. It has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence on the basis of probability. It was held by the Hon''ble National Commission as under: "5. 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. "

It was further held by the Hon''ble National Commission in Para 8 of the judgment as under: "8. 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 this 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 M. E. Lab in the presence of the representative of the complainant. "

The respondents have succeeded to prove that appellant and committed theft of electric energy and the demand made by them was legal and valid.

IN view of discussion held above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.