The failure to provide conclusive evidence of electricity theft mandates the preservation of the consumer's rights under procedural law.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. (Oral)--The present appeal originates from the judgment dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge (HQs) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 616482/2016 titled as Smt. Kaushalya Devi & Anr. Versus BSES YPL & Ors..

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court was pleased to decree the suit filed by the Respondents herein (the original plaintiffs) with cost in favour of the Respondents. Aggrieved by the said impugned judgment, the Appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court.

3. The facts which are relevant for consideration of the present appeal are as follows:

4. Respondent No. 1 along with her family is residing in House No.16/697H, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi ("the said premises"). Respondent No. 1 is a registered consumer of electricity connection bearing CA No. 100627681 installed at the said premises. Respondent No. 1 received a notice dated 28.10.2014 from the Appellants under Section 163 of the Electricity Act, 2003, exhibited as PW1/X1. It was stated in the said notice that on 28.10.2014, one Mr. MPS Tyagi, an Officer of Appellant No.1 visited the said premises for carrying out inspection, however, Respondent No. 1 denied access to the officer of Appellant No.1 to the said premises. In view thereof, the Appellants, vide notice dated 26.10.2014, called upon Respondent No. 1 to grant access of the said premises to the officials of Appellant No.1 for carrying out inspection in terms of the earlier notice dated 28.10.2014. It was further mentioned in the said notice that failure on the part of Respondent No.1 to provide access to the said premises may lead to disconnection of electricity. The Appellants called upon Respondent No. 1 to communicate her consent within 24 hours.

5. Since no response had been received from Respondent No. 1, Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 alongwith other staff reached the said premises on 11.11.2014 for disconnection of electricity. The inspection in the said premises was carried out in the presence of the Respondents. It is the case of the Appellants that there was no display in the electricity meter installed at the said premises. During the course of inspection, the officials of the Appellants found that the Respondents were involved in direct theft of electricity. Based on the said inspection, Appellant No. 2 prepared an inspection report, exhibited as DW1/3.

6. The officials of Appellant No.1 prepared a Seizure Memo for the inspection conducted on 11.11.2014. The Appellants contend that they had seized the punctured cable, which was used by the Respondents for the purposes of carrying out theft of electricity; however, Respondent No. 2 snatched the said crucial piece of evidence from the officials of Appellant No.1. The officials of Appellant No.1, vide Seizure Memo, seized one Aluminium Cable and one Yellow Service Line from the Respondents. The Seizure Memo separately records, "A 3 feet (approx.) yellow punctured cable was snatched by user Sanjay". The officials of Appellant No.1 left the said premises on 11.11.2014 after disconnecting the electricity connection. It is the case of the Appellants that the Respondents refused to sign the inspection report and further allowed them to paste the said report on the said premises.

7. Respondent No.2 visited the office of Appellant No.1 on 12.11.2014 requesting for restoration of the electricity connection. He further submitted a representation dated 12.11.2014 for restoration of the electricity connection however the same was not restored.

8. Based on the said inspection