The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence of tampering with the meter and the report of the M.E. Lab to prove electricity theft.

Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—It is an appeal against the order dated 20.3.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

2. Briefly stated the facts, alleged in the complaint, are that the appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant), was running his Ice Factory with electricity bearing Account No. M.S. 109. Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement), Tarn Taran checked the premises of the complainant on 26.5.1998. At the time of checking the paper seals affixed on the meter cup board and the seals on the meter were found intact but as the Senior Executive Engineer - Shri R.K. Seth made a wrong report to the effect that the paper seals were re-affixed with some adhesive. The complainant had approached the District Forum with a prayer that the respondent-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party), may be restrained from preparing a false and frivolous report from the M.E. Lab with an intention to cause damage to the complainant. A demand notice dated 6.11.1998 creating a demand of Rs. 76,742/- was issued to the complainant. It is further submitted in the complaint that it was not possible to commit theft as alleged by the opposite party in the alleged notice. The demand notice was termed to be illegal as the opposite party under the influence of the Senior Executive Engineer intended to cause damage to the complainant as the complainant did not agree to the wrong and illegal demand of the Senior Executive Engineer. Ultimately a prayer was made in the complaint that the opposite party be directed to withdraw the demand and also to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. Costs of the complaint were also demanded.

3. Reply was filed by the opposite party. Contentions made by the complainant were broadly denied. Maintainability of the complaint was disputed. Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement) was alleged to have inspected the premises of the complainant on 26.5.1998 and he had found scratches on the digits inside the body of the meter just below the index plate of the meter and also gasket joining the window glass appeared to have been tampered with and a cut from the upper side. The red paper seals affixed on the meter cup board glass were also found tampered with after reaffixing the same with some adhesive and window glass of the meter cup board could easily be removed. Senior XEN enforcement had kept the meter under observation in order to get the meter checked from the M.E. Lab. Senior XEN Enforcement had again inspected the spot on 12.6.1998 in the presence of the representative of the complainant in continuation to the inspection dated 26.5.1998. Meter was removed on 12.6.1998; it was packed and sealed at the spot and sent to the M.E. Lab and the complainant was requested to be present in the M.E. Lab on 29.6.1998 at the time of testing the meter. The meter was tested in the M.E. Lab but the complainant had refused to sign the report. It was then alleged in the reply that the M.E. Lab report established tampering of the meter without any shadow of doubt. It was finally prayed in the reply that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4. The complainant filed a rejoinder wherein he had reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and had denied the version of the opposite party.

5. After hearing the arguments and having gone through the documents as well as evidence on the file District Forum dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

Hence this appeal.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the order of the District Forum as well as the record of the case with their assistance.

We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

7. It has come in the evidence on the file that scratches were found on the index plate of the meter. A pin and some rubber pieces were found inside the meter. Report of the M.E. Lab, submitted by Shri G.S. Randhawa, SDO, M.E. Lab, reveals that the mete