Heard counsel for the petitioner.

-2-

The complaint filed by the complainant was allowed by the District Forum but on appeal filed by the opposite party the order was reversed and the complaint was dismissed. The State Commission found that the seals of the meter which were checked with the sample seals and the impression of the seal did not tally and the same were declared as duplicate. The State Commission also found that on perusal of the documents produced on record, the complainant was committing theft of electricity energy. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to paragraph 4 as also 4 (iii) of the reply filed by the respondents and on the basis of the same it is submitted that the respondents have themselves contended that the complainant did not have sufficient time to indulge in malpractice since the meter was installed on 12.2.1996. In view of this position, counsel for the petitioner further states that a connected load found on 27.8.1996 was almost the same as found on 23.2.1996 and there was no malpractice in the load found on 23.2.1996. Paragraphs 4 (a), 4(b) and 4 (i) & (iii) of the reply read as under: -

“That para No.4 of the complaint is admitted that the premises were again checked on 27.8.96 by the Assistant Director (Vigilance) and observed as under: -

-3-

(a)   The connected load was found to be 29.124 KW against the sanctioned load of 15.435 KW hence a sum of Rs.5700/- were charged for the un-authorised extension of load.

(b)   The M & P seals were found duplicate and to be verified from the M & P Lab. Accordingly the meter was sent to M & P Lab. and seals were checked in the presence of the complainant which were found duplicate which means the complainant committed the theft of energy. And as per rules and regulations of the respondent Board a notice of assessment for Rs.1,60,440/- assessed on account of theft of energy were served upon the complainant. The complainant deposited the 50% of the assessed amount and supply was restored. The amount so assessed is quite legal and as per rules and regulations of the Board.

(i) That the sub para of para No.4 of the complaint is wrong, in correct and denied as written. The connected load found on 27.8.96 was almost the same as found on 23.2.1996 which means the complainant did not remove the un-authorised load. The seals were checked with the sample seals and the impression does not tally hence found duplicate. Two number seals bearing number G30662/BM-7 and G30661/ BM 7 found on 23.2.1996 were found changed to G 30662/BM 13 and G 30661/BM 13 on 27.8.1996. As per Clause 10 (a) and 10 (b) of the terms and conditions of the supply, the consumer cannot alter and extend the load without prior approval of the respondent Board hence any alternation and extension of

-4-

load without prior approval is a mal practice for which penalty is recoverable from the complainant.

(iii) That para No. (iii) of Para No.4 of the complaint is wrong, incorrect and denied as written. The meter checked on 23.2.1996 was installed on only four days ago i.e. on 19.2.1996 which means the complainant did not have sufficient time to indulge in mal-practice which was committed as found on 27.8.1996.

With reference to  paragraph 4 (iii), the respondents have completely denied the same and that it is wrong, incorrect and denied. However, there is apparent error in the 4^th line of paragraph 4 (iii) of the reply wherein ‘not’ has been mentioned, which is not in consonance with the reply in the said paragraph 4 (iii) as also 4 of the said reply.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.