Uttari Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited And Anr. vs KARAM CHAND

PREMISES of the respondent, who happens to be a consumer of petitioner -corporation consuming electricity, supplied by the petitioner Corporation was inspected by officials of petitioner Corporation on 21.12.2000 and during inspection seals of the meter was found smudged with colour and it was also found tampered. The meter in question was sent to M and T laboratory, which too found both seals of the meter tampered. Thereafter checking report was prepared and a penalty amounting to Rs. 1,08,132 was imposed on the respondent, which was duly communicated to him. The respondent filed made a consumer complaint which was keenly contested by the petitioner -Corporation. However, District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings of the parties, directed petitioner -Corporation to refund amount of penalty along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization. The appeal preferred by the petitioner Corporation did not find favour with State Commission and State Commission dismissed appeal of petitioner Corporation upholding order of District Forum, hence this revision.

LEARNED Counsel for the parties were heard on admission. Contention raised on behalf of respondent was that it would be manifestly apparent from inspection report itself that it did not bear endorsement of the respondent and, thus, it would not bind him to pay the penalty.

OBVIOUSLY , the inspection carried out by officials of the petitioner Corporation was in purported exercise of powers vested under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which enjoins that assessment made by the Assessing Officer would be provisional giving opportunity to consumer to file objection, if aggrieved with the finding of inspection team. Fora below, on consideration of the pleadings of the parties, found that tampering of meter in absence of other evidence was not sufficient to draw conclusion about the theft of energy and, that apart, even inspection report was not signed by the consumer respondent. The appeal, too, preferred by petitioner Corporation did not find favour with the State Commission. We have heard submissions made on behalf of parties. The inspection report itself bears endorsement made by the inspection team that the consumer refused to sign the document. In our view, in case the consumer refuses to sign the inspection report and does not co -operate with the inspection team no eye -brows can be raised against fairness of the inspection. That apart, if the respondent was aggrieved with the provisional assessment made by the Assessing Officer, it was open to him to file objection and eventually to move the Appellate Authority and Statutory Body, constituted under the Act. The notice, imposing penalty was also acknowledged by respondent. We do not feel impressed about any action resorted to by the respondent challenging either the alleged inspection or imposition of penalty, as required under the Act. The finding recorded by State Commission, as such, ignoring provisions of Electricity Act which the consumer was required to follow in case aggrieved, was not sustainable. The finding of the State Commission is, accordingly, set aside and revision petition succeeds. However, there will be no order as to cost.