Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
UTTARI HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SHIV KUMAR - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 350 of 2009 against order dated 5.11.2008 in Appeal No. 378 of 2002 of State Commission, UT Chandigarh
Decided on : 02-03-2009
Mr. Randhir Singh Badhran, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
The absence of essential evidence such as a test report from the laboratory and the lack of presence of the respondent or an independent person during the inspection led to the court's decision that the respondent was not guilty of theft of energy.
Headnote:
Tampered Seals - Theft of Electricity - The court found that in the absence of a test report from the laboratory and the inspection being carried out without the presence of the respondent or an independent person, it cannot be held that the respondent was guilty of theft of energy.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent received a demand for payment alleging theft of electricity due to tampered seals, but the inspection report lacked the required signatures and was carried out in the absence of the respondent or an independent person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission and dismissed the revision petition, concluding that the respondent was not guilty of theft of energy.
Issues: Alleged theft of electricity based on tampered seals, lack of required signatures on the inspection report, absence of test report from the laboratory, and absence of the respondent or an independent person during the inspection.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a test report from the laboratory and the inspection being carried out without the presence of the respondent or an independent person, it cannot be held that the respondent was guilty of theft of energy.
Final Decision: Revision petition is dismissed, and the respondent is not held guilty of theft of energy.
ORDER
1. Respondent/complainant received a Memo No. 5255/OA dated 23.11 2000 demanding a sum of Rs. 65,698.54 alleging that the premises of the complainant was checked on 22.11.2000 and it was found that M and T seals were tampered and the respondent was guilty of theft of electricity. The inspection report does not bear the signatures of the complainant. According to the petitioner, the complainant ran away from the spot. Under the rules the petitioner was required to get signatures of neighbour or independent person which was not done.
2. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. In the absence of any test report from the laboratory showing that the seals had been tampered with and also in view of the fact that the inspection was carried out in the absence of respondent or an independent person, it cannot be held that the respondent was guilty of theft of energy. Revision petition is dismissed.
