Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President;
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor and Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt Members
HSWEB (NOW HVPN) & ORS.—Appellants
versus
Bhushan Lal—Respondent
Appeal Case No. 1138 of 2000/RBT 318/2006—Decided on 24.8.2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Sharma, LDC.
For the Respondent: None.
Theft of energy cannot be established based solely on the tampering of meter seals without further evidence of energy consumption comparison.
Headnote:
Theft of Energy - Electricity Connection - The court held that the mere tampering of meter seals does not establish theft of energy without further evidence such as a parallel meter installation and energy consumption comparison. The absence of such evidence led to the dismissal of the penalty charges imposed on the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a permanent resident, was accused of tampering with meter seals and theft of electricity energy. The District Consumer Forum accepted the complaint and quashed the penalty charges of Rs. 35,633 demanded by the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the raiding party failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish theft of energy, as they did not install a parallel meter or compare energy consumption. Consequently, the penalty charges were dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent had committed theft of energy based on the alleged tampering of meter seals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere tampering of meter seals is not sufficient to establish theft of energy. Without further evidence such as a parallel meter installation and energy consumption comparison, the allegations of theft could not be upheld.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, concurring with the reasoning of the District Consumer Forum and holding that the penalty charges of Rs. 35,633 were not justified.
Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President—This appeal has been directed by opposite parties against order dated 26.5.2000 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Kaithal, Haryana (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which the complaint of respondent Bhushan Lal (complainant) was accepted and the amount of Rs. 35,633 demanded by the appellants from the respondent was quashed. It was further ordered that if any amount was paid by the respondent, then the same be adjusted in his account in the future bills.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent (complainant) is permanent resident of Kaithal and is having electricity connection bearing No. KC-25/6371 at his residential premises. He had been depositing all the bills issued by the appellants regarding energy consumed by him regularly without any delay.
3. It was averred that on 13.7.1998, officials of the appellant visited his premises and checked the meter as well as connection installed at his residence and seals on the meter were intact but the officials of appellants alleged that the meter seals had been tampered with and in fact the allegations made by them were wrong. They even lodged false report regarding theft of electricity energy and further imposed an amount of Rs. 35,633 as penalty charges for alleged theft which was illegal and contrary to the law.
4. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.
5. Appellants contested the complaint and filed written reply. They stated that on 13.7.1998, the area incharge Sh. R.P. Gupta, JE along with other officials checked the meter of the respondent and found that both M&T seals were tampered with and T seal was missing and he was found committing theft of electric energy by tampering with the meter and as such electric connection was disconnected and in this way, the board had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 35,633 due to theft of energy. Consequently, notice of assessment of Rs. 35,633 was served upon the respondent. They further stated that the checking report was prepared by the officials at the spot and FIR was lodged against the respondent.
6. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.
7. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 26.5.2000 accepted the complaint as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties have filed the present appeal.
9. None appeared on behalf of respondent despite service of notice upon his Counsel Mr. Rajinder Goya, Advocate and as such respondent was proceeded against ex parte.
10. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Sharma, LDC on behalf of appellants and carefully gone through the file.
11. The allegation of appellants is that the premises of respondent were checked on 13.7.1998 by the raiding party and on checking found that both M & T seals were tampered with and terminal seal was missing. Now the question arises whether from the mere fact that M & T seals were tampered with and terminal seal was missing, a case for theft of energy is made out. The answer is certainly not. It was incumbent upon on the raiding party to instal a parallel meter and should have noted difference in the energy consumed in both meters. Having not done so, from the mere fact that seals were tampered with, it cannot be said that theft of energy had been committed. The meter was not got checked from M & T Laboratory that it was running slow or was not running properly. In the absence of such evidence it cannot be held that complainant had committed theft of energy.
12. In such circumstances, District Consumer Forum has rightly held that it is not proved that respondent had committed theft of energy and as such quashed penalty to the tune of Rs. 35,633. We concur with the reasoning of the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal and as such the same is dismissed.
13. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge.
Appeal dismissed.
