Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan,
President & Mrs. Sushma Tanwar, Member
RAMCHANDRA MODI—Appellant
versus
R.S.E.B.—Respondent
Appeal Nos. 1535 & 1603 of 1996—Decided on 12.5.2004
For the Appellant :Mr. D.M. Mathur, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Miss Kumkum Singh for Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocates.
Unjust accusation of theft of electric energy without proper assessment procedures is not permissible.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Electric Connection - The court held that the appellant board unjustly charged the complainant for theft of electric energy without proper assessment and rejected the vigilance report, leading to the dismissal of the board's appeal and allowance of the complainant's appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's meter had a burnt phase, and after reporting the issue to the appellant board, the board's lineman made the other phases functional. Subsequently, the board's vigilance party accused the complainant of theft of electric energy and imposed a penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the vigilance report and the board's accusation of theft, as the lineman had not removed the actual defect in the meter and the vigilance party did not follow proper assessment procedures.
Issues: Unjust accusation of theft of electric energy, rejection of vigilance report, liability of the appellant board
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the accusation of theft was unjust and the vigilance report was illegible and not followed by proper assessment procedures, leading to the dismissal of the board's appeal and allowance of the complainant's appeal.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, the board's appeal was dismissed, and the complainant's appeal was allowed, quashing and cancelling all liabilities raised by the board based on the vigilance report.
Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—These cross-appeals arise out of the order of the Forum dated 20.7.1996 made in Complaint No. 91/96. These were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common order.
2. Ramchandra Modi complainant (appellant in Appeal No: 1534/96) was appellant’s consumer in respect of his SIP electric connection to run a flour mill in the village. Since one of the phase of his meter had burnt, he lodged a complaint with the appellant on 16.9.1995 requesting them to remove the defect and repair the defective meter. The lineman of the appellant is stated to have reached the business premises of the complainant sometimes in the month of Oct. 1995 but since he was not having with him necessary implements to remove the defect from the D.P., he removed the burnt third phase from the meter and made the other phase functional. Thereafter on 9.11.1995 a vigilance party of the appellant visited the business premises of the complainant and noted that the body seal on the meter was broken. The vigilance party came to the conclusion that the complainant was committing theft of electric energy by taking such energy directly from the supply line to his meter. They, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,302. They removed the meter of the complainant also. On 15.11.1995 the appellant deposited re-connection fee of Rs. 225 and also deposited a sum of Rs. 8,151 under protest in order to obtain the supply of electric energy to his flour mill. The appellant Board then restored the supply of electric energy to him. Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 before the Forum complaining rendition of deficient services by the appellant Board to him and refund of the amount depositing by him. The Forum held that the respondent could have charged a sum of Rs. 8,151 and not the entire amount of Rs. 16,302. The order so made by the Forum caused grievance to both the parties. The appellant Board filed its appeal for the reason that the Forum had unjustly deleted the liability of the respondent amounting to Rs. 8,151. On the other hand, the complainant had challenged the order of the Forum in keeping his liability of Rs. 8,151 in respect of alleged theft of electric energy by him.
3. On a study of the material available on the record of the Forum it is noted that the complainant had himself reported to the appellant Board about the non-functional condition of one phase of his meter. It is not disputed that on such complaint of the complainant, the lineman of the appellant Board had gone to the business premises of the appellant but without necessary implement to remove the defect in the meter. Without removing the actual defect in the meter the lineman had simply taken out the burnt phase from the meter and made the other two phases functional. In para 1 of the additional pleas of its reply, the appellant Board had admitted that the body seal of the meter was quite intact. The report of the vigilance party, as has been placed on the record of the Forum is quite illegible. We tried our best to decipher it with the help of appellant’s own Counsel as also the other Advocates present in the Court but no body could decipher the same. Under such circumstances the contention of the appellant Board that the respondent had indulged himself in committing theft of electric energy cannot be accepted, particularly looking to the conduct of the complainant that in order to get the third phase of the meter, made functional, he himself had reported the matter to the officers of the appellant Board. The vigilance report is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected as such.
4. Apart from the above, if the officers of the vigilance party had found the complainant committing theft of electric energy they should have proceeded to make assessment of his liability as per provisions contained in condition No. 29(d)(e)(f) of its General Conditions of Supply. Such procedure was not adopted by them. On th
