LAWS(NCD)-2011-9-1

RATNA RAM MALIK Vs. UHBVNL

Decided On September 01, 2011
RATNA RAM MALIK Appellant
V/S
UHBVNL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30th June 2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission ). By the said order, the State Commission accepted the appeal of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (in short, the UHBVNL the officers concerned of which are the respondents in this revision petition) and set aside the order dated 14.06.2004 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (in short, the District Forum ) by which the District Forum had struck down the penalty of Rs.35,660/- levied by the UHBVNL on the petitioner and directed to refund the said amount which had been deposited by the petitioner/complainant.

(2.) The complainant had an electric connection at his premises which was inspected by an Assistant Executive Engineer (Vigilance) of the respondent on 24.10.2002. During this inspection, it was noticed that the electric meter was running too slow and the M & T seals had been tampered with. The meter was removed and a checking report was prepared on the spot in the presence of the wife of the petitioner/ complainant and also a tenant. The latter too refused to sign the inspection report. Treating this case as one of theft of electricity, respondent no. 1 issued a notice to the petitioner/complainant directing him to deposit Rs.35,660/- as the assessed penalty and also informing that the petitioner/complainant had the right to prefer an appeal to the Executive Engineer concerned within 30 days of the notice. The petitioner/complainant was further informed that in case the amount was not deposited within 48 hours, an FIR would be lodged. It would appear that the petitioner/complainant deposited the amount within the aforesaid period but filed a consumer complaint challenging the penalty on the ground that the checking report was false and prepared in his absence and there was no electricity theft as alleged.

(3.) (i) We have heard Mr. Keshav Rai, on behalf of the petitioner.