IMPORTANT POINT
In a case of electricity bill raised on basis of pilferage, consumer complaint is not to be decided as if it was criminal trial but rather is to be decided on preponderance of probability.

M.B. Shah, President—Despite repeated services, the respondent/complainant has not remained present. Lastly, direct service was also issued but the complainant refused to accept the same.

2. These revision petitions are filed against the judgment and order dated 25.4.2000 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, in Appeal Nos. 1310/1998 and 1333/1998 by which the State Commission dismissed the Appeal No. 1333/98 filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board, confirmed the order dated 27.10.98 passed by the District Forum, Amritsar in complaint No. 772 of 1998 and partly allowed the Appeal No. 1310/1998 filed by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation.

3. The District Forum and the State Commission dealt with the matter as if they were deciding a criminal case and observed that where there is allegation of theft of electricity, the Electricity Board has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant has committed the theft. It is also observed that the allegation of theft being penal in nature amounts to criminal offence and, hence, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, is heavily cast on the Electricity Board.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. Gulati, appearing for the Electricity Board, contended that the aforesaid findings recorded by the State Commission and the District Forum are without application of mind to the fact that the District Forum or the State Commission was not trying the criminal offence. The matter ought to have been decided on the basis of preponderance of probability, which is the yardstick for deciding the civil dispute.

5. In our view, the submission is justified. The District Forum or the State Commission were not trying the criminal offence or criminal appeal, but were deciding a dispute arising out of issuance of bill demanding an amount of Rs. 1,39,050 from the complainant on the ground of pilferage of electricity. It is to be reiterated that the Consumer Fora are exercising Civil Court’s jurisdiction and the cases are to be decided on the basis of the evidence which is brought on record and preponderance of probability is the criteria for deciding the matters.

6. Therefore, we have to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence which is brought on record. The District Forum and the State Commission have relied upon the evidence of the Executive Engineer as well as the S.D.O. It is true that the aforesaid evidence reveal that the Executive Engineer visited the place before six months and the meter was found intact. Similarly, the meter reader has not detected any pilferage.

7. As against this, there is an evidence of the MES Laboratory 17.7.98 which reads as under:

“Account No. MS 199

Today dated 17.7.1998 one three phase meter packed in card box is brought by Jasbir Singh JE Kot Mit Singh vide challan No. SPL 1 dated 17.7.1998. This had two No. Paper Seals Serial No. 019881 and 019882 dated 14.7.1998 on it. Signature of the Sr. XEN Enforcement Taran Taran, S.D.O. Kot Mit Singh & Consumer Representative were on these paper Seal Sh. Surat Singh had personally verified the signature of consumer representative Paramjit Singh. These two paper seals were OK.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

Consumer Sr. XEN ENF. S.D.O. S.D.O.

Rep. Taran Taran ME ASR Kot Mit Singh

After removing the paper seals meter was taken out from card board box and its particulars as under:

Make: M&I

Meter No. 703667

Branch No. ASR-21627

Capacity 3* 100/5

Reading 281825

Its body had two red seals No. 0430411and 0430412 upper and lower side which were OK. Its body having four Aluminium seals which were OK. Two simple paper seals dated 16.6.1994 on the body and joint were OK. Two paper Seals dated 20.4.1997 of S.D.O. Kot Mit Singh on lower and upper of the glass were found torn. These were torn to fix red seals. Meter was checked after breaking four No. lead seals and two No. paper seals. By opening the internal clamp of the meter cover glass was removed that