SUB-DIVISION OFFICER, PSEB vs NIRANJAN SINGH

BRIEF facts mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant was running an Atta Chakki in Village Rani Majra by holding electric connection account No. SPH/0830 for 25 H.P. motor and was thus consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite parties had issued a bill dated 16.1.1999 for Rs. 59,931/- on the assumption that the complainant had committed theft of electric energy. Prior to above-mentioned bill the complainant had cleared/made payment of electricity bill before 16.8.1998. There was no arrears/liability towards the complainant/ consumer. Cause of such a huge bill was given "Glass of meter found broken". The matter was pursued by the then S.D.O. of PSEB and a penalty of Rs. 150/- on account of finding of broken meter glass was imposed which was duly deposited by the complainant. Thereupon, the bill was reduced to Rs. 1,431/- only after withdrawal of huge money/amount from that bill. It was then stated in the complaint that again the withdrawn amount has been re-added in the fresh bill dated 16.1.1999 under ill-will and ulterior motive to extract money from the complainant. According to the complainant, even the breakage of meter glass was not intentional but was by chance. Neither seals etc. were found broken nor other fraud etc. was ever detected and no theft of energy was ever detected/found against the complainant. A prayer was made in the end by the complainant that the impugned bill may be ordered to be corrected/rectified in the interest of justice and fair play.

ON being served, the opposite parties filed reply. It has been stated in the reply that as per the report of the Meter Inspector, during the routine checking it was found that the glass of the meter was broken and hence it was a clear-cut case of theft of energy. It was further submitted that in case the glass of the meter is broken then the consumption recorded by the meter can be manipulated by the consumer by stopping the meter as and when required. As such as per the rules the account of the complainant was overhauled keeping in view the connected load as under : 1. Sale of power Rs. 47,000/- 2. Electricity duty Rs. 2,350/- Advance consumption deposit (security) Rs. 9,000/-

R.C.O. fees Rs. 150/- Total Rs. 58,500/- 3. It was further stated in the reply that as the meter was found stopped at the time of checking on 5.2.1998 by the Meter Inspector, the abovesaid amount was ordered to be recovered from the complainant. Hence this amount was shown in the bill issued in the month of July, 1998. A sum of Rs. 150/- as mentioned in the complaint was received from the consumer for the broken glass at his own request. But the remaining amount continued to stand in the account of the complainant. The amount was not paid and in the meantime the current bill was also being prepared hence bill for a total amount of Rs. 59,941/- which included Rs. 58,500/- plus Rs. 1,441/- as current consumption bill was issued to the complainant in 8/98. In the end, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents on record, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the District Forum) allowed the complaint with costs of Rs. 500/- and the imposition of penalty of Rs. 58,500/- on the allegation of theft of energy was quashed.

WE have gone through the reasoning recorded by the District Forum for allowance of the complaint. Reasons given by the District Forum find favour with us. Simply saying by the opposite parties that it was a case of theft of energy, as the glass of the meter was found broken was not enough to prove theft of energy. Nothing has been brought on record, which could prove the ingredients of theft of energy in the case in hand. No report of the Meter Inspector has been produced on the record. No affidavit of the Meter Inspector, who found during routine checking that the glass of the meter was broken, has been placed on the file. There is in fact no material at all found on the record, which could lead to the conclusion of theft of energy. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is, thus, dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed.