Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Madan, President and Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
JAI DURGA PLASTICS - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1727 of 2002
Decided on : 18-09-2009
Mr. I.P.S. Sawhney, Law Officer., for the Appellant; Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent
Theft of electricity energy and unauthorized load can lead to justified penalties under the terms and conditions of the supply.
Headnote:
Penalty - Electricity Connection - The complainant was penalized for unauthorized excess load and theft of electricity energy. The District Forum ordered the return of the penalty amount and declared it null and void. The appellant appealed, arguing that the complainant was rightly penalized for theft of electricity energy and unauthorized load.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was penalized for unauthorized excess load and theft of electricity energy. The District Forum ordered the return of the penalty amount and declared it null and void. The appellant appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was rightly penalized for theft of electricity energy and unauthorized load. The impugned order was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant was rightly penalized for theft of electricity energy and unauthorized load.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant was using electricity energy dishonestly by illegal means, and the penalty imposed was justified under the terms and conditions of the supply.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed.
ORDER
R.S. Madan, President - The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent-complainant is having electricity connection bearing account No. 7-SOP-57. On 23.2.1996 the premises of the complainant was checked by ADV of the appellant-opposite parties and noticed that the connected load of the complainant was 29.170 K.W. against the sanctioned load of 15.435 K.W. Thus, the complainant was imposed penalty of Rs. 5,700 for excess unauthorized load of 13.735 KW, and the same was deposited by the respondent-complainant. Two burnt meters were also lying in the premises of the complainant, a glass of one meter was found broken and reading of the same was not visible. The reading of another meter was read by breaking the glass and was found 00005. The old meter which was burnt and replaced on 29.11.1995, however, the new meter which was installed on 29.11.1995 was also got burnt and replaced on 29.2.1996. As the reading of the meter was not visible, therefore, the complainant was billed on average basis since 11/95 to 2/95 at the rate of 1000 units per month tentatively and the account of the complainant was overhauled on the basis of connected load which was found at the time of checking. In this way, the complainant was charged a sum of Rs. 37,404.
2. The complainant made representation to the higher authorities of the Nigam, upon which the case was referred to the competent authority for settlement. However, in the mean time the connection of the complainant was again checked up on 27.8.1996 upon which the M and P seals of the meter of the complainant were found duplicate and thus the dispute could not be settled. The complainant was served with a notice of assessment of Rs. 1,60,440 on account of theft of energy. The complainant deposited 50% of the penalty amount and thereafter the electricity supply of the complainant, which was disconnected, was restored.
3. Challenging the penalty imposed upon him, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 85,920, besides compensation of Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and harassment caused to him.
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties resisted the claim of the complainant and justified the penalty imposed upon the complainant as stated above.
Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. The District Forum accepted the complaint and granted following relief:
"1. The respondents are ordered to return the amount of the complainant, which the complainant has deposited with the respondent at the time of imposition of the penalty upon the complainant, the penalty imposed upon the complainant in regard to the electricity connection bearing No. 7-SP-57 is declared null and void and invalid.
2. The respondents are, however, entitled to adjust the penalty amount which the complainant has deposited with the respondent in the future bills of the complainant pertaining to electricity connection of the complainant bearing Account No. 7-SP-57 or any other connection of complainant's choice.
The respondents are ordered to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days after the receipt of the same."
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the appellant-opposite parties have come up in appeal.
Heard.
5. At the very outset it is contended by the learned Law Officer that during checking conducted by the officials of the appellants-opposite parties on 27.8.1996, the connected load of the complainant was found similar as was on 23.2.1996. Meaning thereby, during this period the complainant had not removed the excess connected load. The seals of the meter were checked with the sample seals and the impression of the seals did not tally and as such the same were declared as duplicate. Two number seals bearing No. G 30662/BM-7 and G 390661/ BM 7 were found on 23.2.1996 were found changed to G 30662/BM 13 and G 30661/BM 13 on 27.8.1996.
6. It is further argued by the learned Law Officer that as p
