Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant was having a seasonal connection from the petitioner for agricultural purposes which was utilized by him  during the months of October to April for which he was receiving the bill amount varying from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.  He received a demand notice dated 27.11.2001 for Rs.1,06,613/- for alleged

-2-

tampering of the meter seals.  Respondent after depositing the amount under protest, filed the complaint seeking refund of Rs.1,06,613/- and Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.1,06,613/- along with interest @ 12 p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to send the meter, which had been removed by it, to M&T Laboratory to verify as to whether there was any tampering with the meter seals.  The State Commission held that it was mandatory for the petitioner to send the meter to M&T Laboratory for checking and to verify as to whether there was any tampering with the meter or not.  The State Commission in its order has recorded the following reasons for the conclusion arrived at:

“In this case the prominent fact which cannot be ignored and vehemently contended from the side of the respondent-complainant is that it is the case of the opposite parties that at the time of inspection the meter

-3-

installed was removed from the premises of the complainant and thereafter it was sealed into a box but thereafter the opposite parties have failed to send the same to the M & T Laboratory because no report of the Laboratory has been placed on record.  It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that mandatory procedure in this regard has not been followed by the opposite parties because after having removed the meter and sealed into a box, the opposite parties were duty bound to send the same for test to the M & T Laboratory.  There is a considerable merit in the stand taken from the side of the complainant.  No explanation has come forth on record from the side of the opposite party as to why the meter has not been sent to the M & T Laboratory for test.  Under the circumstances of the case the findings of the District Forum that the opposite parties have failed to establish that the complainant was indulging in the theft of energy at the time of inspection carried out by the opposite parties is not substantiated on record, cannot be brushed side.”

          The petitioner had, admittedly, failed to send the meter removed by it to M&T Laboratory to verify as to whether there was

-4-

any tampering with the meter seals or not.  It was a mandatory procedure which the petitioner has failed to follow.  We agree with the findings recorded by the fora below that the petitioner had failed to establish that the respondent was indulging in theft of energy.  However, we feel that the interest @ 12% is on the higher side.  The order passed by the fora below is upheld with the modification that the rate of interest is reduced to 9% p.a.

          revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.