HVPN vs Parkash Flour Mills

THIS appeal has been directed by the opposite party against order dated 28.7.2000 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- Jagadhri, Haryana (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which the complaint of respondent (complainant) was accepted and the amount imposed upon the respondent as penalty vide memo No. 1582 dated 23.7.1999 amounting to Rs. 87,884 was held to be illegal and the same was quashed. The account of the respondent was directed to be corrected within one month, after adjusting the amount deposited by it.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the premises of respondent (complainant) was checked on 22.7.1999 by ADV and party including Asstt. Executive Engineer, M&T Laboratory in the presence of Ved Parkash who had also signed the checking report. All the seals of the meter were found tampered with and one rivet of right hand side was also found to be tampered. The meter mechanism was found to be changed and the meter recorded one unit on 100 revolutions of disc instead of 36 revolutions. The connected load was found to be 20.24 KW. On account of unauthorised extension of load as well as theft of energy, a penalty of Rs. 87,884 was imposed. Notice dated 23.7.1999 was issued to the respondent and the connection was also disconnected. The allegation of the respondent is that no notice was served upon him by the appellant before imposing penalty as well as disconnection and further no inspection report was supplied to him. In fact he had not committed any fault and the amount demanded by the appellant was illegal. Alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed.

Appellant contested the complaint and filed written reply. It stated that the meter of respondent was tampered with and was not showing actual consumption. It next stated that the meter of the respondent was checked by the A.E., Vigilance on 22.7.1999 and it was found that all the seals of the meter were tampered with and one rivet of right side was also tampered and the meter mechanism was not correct. The connected load of the respondent was found to be 21.24 KW instead of 18.650 KW which was sanctioned load and as such the penalty had been rightly imposed.

AFTER hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 28.7.2000 accepted the complaint as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Sharma,LDC on behalf of appellant, Counsel for respondent Sh.Vijay Singh and carefully gone through the file.

THE main contention of the appellant is that the meter on surprise checking was found to be tampered with and further there was unauthorised extension of load and also it was recording one unit on 100 revolutions of disc instead of 36 revolutions. It has been observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in IV (2005) CPJ 32 (SC)=VI (2005) SLT 673, SDO Electricity and Anr. v. B.S. Lobana in Civil Appeal No. 2491 of 2005 arising out of SLP (CJ No. 23799 of 2004) decided on 8.4.2005, that before moving the District Forum, respondent should have moved an application under Section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act,1910 for referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent was dismissed granting liberty to file an application under Section 26(6) of the Act in accordance with law. Therefore, in view of this authority, the order passed by the District Consumer Forum dated 28.7.2000 is set aside and we direct respondent (complainant) to move an application Under Section 26(6) of the Act in accordance with law for necessary relief. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the concerned Electrical Inspector on 1.9.2006, who will decide the matter in accordance with law. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Ordered accordingly