PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Punjab State Electricity Board challenges order of District Forum, Amritsar dated August 3,1998 passed on the complaint of Ashok Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. S. Kumar Woollen Spinning Mills, Amritsar. Direction was given to the appellant Board to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant and to restore the electric connection at the premises of the complainant before August 11, 1998 while setting aside recovery of Rs.1,69,611/- as penalty imposed by the Board on the complainant. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- was also ordered to be paid to the complainant by the Board.

(2.) The complainant was having electric connection No. MS 133 at the factory premises. Regularly bills issued were being paid. On June 19,1998, Sr. Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board in the absence of the complainant inspected the premises and disconnected the electric connection on the allegation that theft of electricity was being committed. On that very day, penalty of Rs.1,69,611/- was imposed. Alleging disconnection and imposition of penalty to be illegal, complaint was filed before the District Forum claiming different reliefs. The Electricity Board submitted the version, inter alia, admitting the fact of disconnection on account of commission of theft. On inspection of the electric meter installed at the premises of the complainant, glass of MCB was found to be fixed with M. Seal from outside. It appeared to be tampered with. On opening the M. Seal, broken pieces of glass were found from the box. On further checking, glass of the electric meter was also found tampered with from upper side. Some signs of tampering on meter plate as well as the digits were also observed in the form of scratches. In the presence of Raghbir Singh, Electrical Supervisor of the complainant, the meter was taken off, sealed and sent to M. E. Lab, Verka for test. On the same day i. e. June 19, 1998, it was tested and on the report of the M. E. Lab, the case of theft was found and the connection was disconnected raising the demand as stated above. This was in accordance with circular issued by the Board No.45/97. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents on the basis of which the impugned order was passed. District Forum held that from the Inspection as well as M. E. Lab Report, the Electricity Board had failed to establish that it was a case of theft. The disconnection was held to be illegal and the necessary relief as stated above was granted.

(3.) Ms. Rajni Gupta, Advocate for the Electricity Board after referring to the Spot Inspection Report as well as ME. Lab Report re- iterated the stand of the Electricity Board that it was a case Of theft and the demand was legal. The fact that it was found so often that there were scratches on the glass as well as digit plates on the, repaired meters which were put to re-fuse, a caution was given to the officers of the Electricity Board in this respect, in their D. O. No.40481 issued by Er. K. S. Gill (Operation Border), Punjab State Electricity Board, Amritsar dated April 17, 1998. Suitable instructions were given to the checking officers to keep in view the aforesaid facts thoroughly before actually declaring cases of thefts. In spite of the above, the present case is to be decided on its own facts as established from the evidence produced. At the outset, it may be stated that the evidence is to be scanned in two parts. The first part relates to observations made on the spot with respect to the condition of MCB and the second part relates to the condition of the meter which is installed in the aforesaid MCB (Board ). Shri B. S. Sekhon, Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement III, Amritsar submitted his affidavit on behalf of the Electricity Board with respect to the condition of the MCB as well as the meter found. On the spot inspection, he found the seals of the MCB intact. However, glass of the MCB was found to the fixed with adhesive material. Some pieces of broken glass were found from inside the meter as stated by him during cross-examination. Assuming for the sake of argument that such observations were correct with regard to the condition of MCB, that per se would not show tampering of the meter installed therein, more so, when the seals of the Board MCB were found to be intact. It cannot be demonstrated otherwise that even if glass is fixed with adhesive, the meter could be approached from such a glass. The adhesive was found inside the MCB which would indicate that from outside the glass was not tampered. The District Forum rightly observed that when MCB seals were found to be intact, no presumption of tampering with the meter by the complainant could be raised.