GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. BABABHAI DOSBHAI MANSURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Gujarat Electricity Board and its Executive Engineer who were Opponents in the complaint filed by the Respondent For the sake of convenience we will address the parties as complainant and Opposite Party. The complainant was having an electrical connection for running his flour mill allegedly from the year 1965. It appears that the consumer number is 408 having sanctioned load of 10 H. P. It appears that on 18.10.88 his supply has been disconnected on the alleged ground that the complainant was committing theft. there were, exchange of notices and after waiting for little longer time the complainant made a complaint before the District Forum in October, 1990.

(2.) The opposite party has filed its version and admitted that the complainant was their consumer. But according to the opposite party the complainant has right to get supply on observing the rules and regulations made by the Company. The complainant has, according to the Board committed theft and hence his energy was disconnected on 18.10.88 after checking was made. The complainant was further given ABCD bill and since the bill was not paid by him the opposite party has not restored the supply. The District Forum has observed that the Deputy Engineer was member of the checking squad which visited the Illol village and the building of the complainant where the flour mill is situated. While checking the meter and the apparatus the Deputy Engineer came to the conclusion that the complainant had tampered with the meter seals and he had therefore a suspicion (hat the complainant had committed pilferage and theft. In order to prove these facts, according to the District Forum, the Deputy Engineer has tried to make a panchnama on paper which has been produced at Exh.14/2. Reading the panchnama the District Forum came to the conclusion that while executing the panchnama the first step required to be taken is to call two panches, inform what they are supposed to do, their names and addresses are to be noted. The expert will reveal all aspects of the matter and will note down the observation of the panches and thereafter their signatures are taken. Whereas in the instant panchnama on Exh.14/2 name of the panches have not been mentioned. After whole panchnama was recorded the panches refused to sign the same and, therefore, they are relying upon this panchnama not as a panchnama but as a 'rojkam' i. e. ' the procedure adopted by a Deputy Engineer. The District Forum observed that the Deputy Engineer had merely taken signatures of the Board employees only which has resulted into fiasco of the panchnama. Even though the panchnama was recorded their names and description have not been written. The Board has not produced the affidavit of the employees of the Board in support of its case. Therefore the District Forum came to the conclusion that the panchnama was one-sided, arbitrary and illegal. The Deputy Engineer could have made this panchnama next day bay calling other panches. The District Forum has, therefore, believed the case of the complainant and passed the order for restoration of electrical energy with Rs.100/- as token damages and Rs.100/- towards cost.

(3.) The following questions arise for our consideration.1 When the inspection squad visits the local premises of a consumer and finds that Unseals have been tampered and suspicion arises as to whether the consumer has tampered with the seals with the intention to commit theft what procedure should be adopted? 2. If the panches are not ready to sign the panchnama what should be done? 3. Whether the Board has a right lo disconnect the supply if the officer finds that the seals are tampered with?