The court emphasized the importance of following established rules and procedures in cases involving theft of energy and consumer disputes.

Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—It’s an appeal against the order dated 23.9.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum).

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was in possession of a domestic electric connection. His meter became dead in March, 2001 and the same was changed on 4.10.2001. It was alleged in the complaint that the old meter was taken unpacked and the complainant was never invited to the M.E. Lab at the time of testing. Appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) had raised the demand alleging that the meter was running slow by 76% and the seals of the meter were tampered. The said allegations, according to the complainant, were false. Connection was disconnected as soon as the memo was delivered. A prayer was made before the District Forum for restoration of the connection with a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and costs.

Opposite party in its reply took the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable since there was no deficiency in service and the meter installed at the premises of the consumer was changed and sent to M.E. Lab wherein it was tested. On testing, it was reported that the M.E. seals were tampered, current coils were changed and the meter was recording 76% less energy. It was a case of measured theft. Thus, as per C.C. No. 33/1999, the account was overhauled and a demand of Rs. 89,594/- was raised on account of theft of energy. It was admitted that the complainant was consumer of the opposite party. Ultimately, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

3. After hearing the representative of the complainant and Counsel for the opposite party, District Forum allowed the complaint.

Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite party and have gone through the order passed by the District Forum.

5. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The opposite party in order to prove the theft had produced the report of M.E. Lab Ex. R-2. According to Ex. R-2, the meter was not packed when it was received in the M.E. Lab, which means that the meter was not packed and sealed at the spot. Had the meter been packed and sealed at the spot the same should have been received in sealed condition in the M.E. Lab. No such evidence is brought to our notice that the meter was sealed and packed at the time of its removal. There is no mention in the M.E. Lab’s report neither any evidence has been shown to us that any notice was given to the consumer to be present at the time of inspection of the meter in the M.E. Lab. Admittedly, the consumer was not present at the time of checking in the M.E. Lab nor his signatures were obtained. As such, the consumer was not joined in the checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab. Admittedly, checking and sealing of the meter was not done. It is then proved that the demand, by the opposite party, was made against the established rules. In these circumstances, District Forum was right in quashing the demand and allowing the complaint. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.