Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—This appeal under Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the ‘Act’), is directed against the order dated 29.11.1997 whereby the District Forum, Dausa cancelled the report of Asstt. Engineer (Vigilance) dated 6.6.1997 regarding commission of theft of electric energy by the respondent after breaking the Meter Box Seal and the Meter Body Seal and further cancelling the demand of Rs. 1,26,000/- raised under Condition No. 29B of the General Conditions of Supply of Electric Energy (General Conditions). The District Forum directed the appellant to instal the meters, which were removed by the officers of the appellant and restore supply of electric energy to him without charging any amount for such restoration of electric supply to the respondent. The District Forum has further directed the appellant to pay to the respondent, (i) Rs. 25,000/- as compensation; (ii) Rs. 500/- per day from 6.6.1997 till restoration of supply of electric energy to the respondent, on account of loss to business; and (iii) Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

2. Facts, relevant to and sufficient for disposal of the present appeal, may be shortly stated as under :

3. Complainant-respondent is a partnership firm running its stone-crushing unit at Dausa, with the help of a 58 H.P. Electric Connection (MIP) sanctioned to it by the appellant. On making a surprise visit by a vigilance party of the appellant to the business premises of the respondent, it was noticed that the Meter Box Seal and the Meter Body Seal were broken and the respondent had indulged himself in committing theft of electric energy by using 63 H.P. load apparatus/machines/equipments as against sanctioned load of 58 H.P. Appellant’s officers removed the meters and disconnected supply of electric energy to the respondent. The officers of the appellant raised demand of Rs. 1,26,000/- against the respondent as per Codition No. 29B of the General Conditions. By filing its complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act before the District Forum, the respondent challenged the actions of the appellant with the version that it was during the intervening night of 3rd and 4th February, 1997 that some anti-social element had broken the Meter Box Seal in respect of which the respondent had delivered an information to an official in the office of the Asstt. Engineer at Dausa, that the respondent did not utilize and use machines exceeding the sanctioned load of 58 H.P., that the welding set found in the cabin of the Chowkidar was not only in working condition but also did not belong to the respondent, that on 6.6.1997 when the vigilance party visited the business premises of the respondent, no one, save the Chowkidar, from amongst the partners of the respondent was there and that wrong facts were stated in the report, prepared by the officers of the appellant about their inspection.

4. The version of the case as given by the appellant was that the respondent had been found committing theft of electric energy by removing the seals of the Meter Box and the Meter Body.

5. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the material on record.

6. By the versions, given by the parties of their respective cases, it is not in dispute that the seal of the Meter Box was found broken at the time of surprise checking of the meter and box by the vigilance party on 6.6.1997. The variance between the two versions, however, lies on two points viz. that whereas the respondent alleges that some dissatisfied labour had broken the seal of the Meter Box only on 3.2.1997, the version of the appellant is that not only the seal of the Meter Box was found broken but also the Meter Body Seal too was found broken on 6.6.1997 by the vigilance Party. In support of his version the complainant-respondent has filed the photostat copies of his applications, stated to have been submitted by him in the office of the Asst. Engineer of the appellant at Dausa. On one of the applications, which is dated 4.2.1999