Mrs. S. Majumder, Member—We have heard learned Lawyer for the appellant on the question of maintainability. Nobody turns up for the respondent. The appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.1999 whereby the Forum ordered restoration of the service of electricity of the respondent within a period of 5 weeks, with a further observation that, the alleged unmetered consumption for a sum of Rs. 81,199.56 shall not be realized from the respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this is a case of pilferage of the electric energy consumed by the respondent (here) by artificial device and the outstanding bill for unmetered consumption amounted to Rs. 81,199.56. He submits that during inspection the officers of the C.E.S.C. on 22.7.1999 detected the theft of energy and lodged an FIR with the police and then disconnected the electric connection on that very day. Subsequently they have raised demand for Rs. 81,199.56 for unmetered consumption. He has drawn our attention to the provisions contained in Clauses 28, 29 and 30 of the Conditions of Supply framed by the C.E.S.C. with the approval of the Govt. of West Bengal. The argument is that because of these conditions, the respondent may seek remedy before the authority prescribed thereunder. According to the appellant the Forum was not justified in entertaining the dispute and passing the direction as above.

2. It has been held by the Forum below that the story of pilferage of electricity as alleged by the CESC is not believable and is concocted for the following reasons. Firstly, there is not an iota of reference to any inspection dated 30.6.1999 in their FIR, and secondly on the inspection report of that date signature of the complainant or his authorised representative was missing. But this finding does not appear to us to be impressing. Because, the complainant-respondent has not disputed the averment made by the O.P. to the effect that the O.P. sent a letter dated 22.7.1999 to the complainant by registered post requesting him to send his representative to the office of the O.P., if he had any representation to make, but despite receipt of that letter the complainant did not turn up, nor sent any representative before the CESC and thereafter the O.P. was constrained to issue its letter of demand in question. From the side of the complainant no explanation has been offered as to why he did not raise any objection or protest before the CESC authority against its report dated 30.6.1999 mentioned above. Had it been a false one, it is quite likely and is in consonance with the normal course of human conduct that the complainant would at once raise his voice against it. Moreover, we do not get any cogent materials before us or find any solid reason to drow a conclusion that the CESC had any grudge or enmity against the complainant, so much so that it would create such an inspection report falsely. From the standpoint of probability such an allegation appears to us to be absurd. The simple fact that in the FIR lodged before the police of Malipanchghara P.S. the informant has used the expression “credible information from office” instead of “inspection report” should not be taken as sufficient to throw aside the inspection report dated 30.6.1999.

3. In this regard, the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission 1997 (2) CPR 92 (NC) by an order dated 9.5.1997 is that “When the Electricity Department detects that any consumer had committed any malpractice with reference to his use of electric energy, the Company may disconnect the supply of electricity without any prior notice. The exercise of the power of disconnection in case of pilferage is in accordance with the statutory powers and cannot be construed as any deficiency in service”.

4. We are also to be governed by the dictates of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, AIR 1996 SC 2258 in MP State Electricity Board v. Harse Wood Products, that ‘before disconnection no prior notice is required in a case of theft of