By this common order, we shall dispose of both the revision petitions as the facts are the same and the point of law involved in -2- them is also the same. Facts are being taken from revision petition 3753/2006. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. Respondent/complainant is having electric domestic connection vide A/c No.LR-11/307 at his residence. According to him, he had been making the payment of all the bills regularly without any delay and nothing was due against him. He was sent a bill for a sum of Rs.19,238/- on account of theft along with the copy of alleged report no.16 dated 13.12.2001. It was threatened that in case he does not pay the amount of Rs.19,238/- immediately, electricity would be disconnected. Under threat, respondent paid the sum of Rs.19,238/-. After paying the said amount, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of Rs.19,238/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and humiliation undergone by him at the hands of the respondent. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.19,238/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the -3- date of deposit till the refund is made. Rs.500/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.500/- as costs. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The State Commission has recorded the following reasons for dismissing the appeal: “The reasons which prevailed upon the District Forum to accept the complaint are that as per the checking report M & T seals were found tampered with and for that reason the meter was required to be removed and taken into custody so as to send the same to the laboratory in order to establish that the seals had been tampered with but no report has been placed on record and that reason the stand of the opposite parties cannot be accepted. While assailing the above conclusion of the District Forum it has been contended by the learned Law Officer that the District Forum has totally ignored the inspection report which recorded that both the plastic seals bearing NO.IIVPNL-0243616-17 were found tampered with in addition to the meter body and the meter being in the custody of the complainant it has to be taken that he was dishonestly abstracting the -4- energy. In addition the load was found to be beyond the sanctioned load. In this case no explanation has been rendered from the sided of the appellants as to why the meter in question was not sent to the M & T Laboratory of the appellants in order to corroborate the authenticity of the checking report. Rather the Sales Circular No.31/98 itself mandates that if there is any dispute regarding the tampering of seals and the inspection procedure, the decision of the M & T authorities of the Nigam duly constituted under the State shall be binding on the consumer but in this case no such report has been sought. Thus, the appellants have been guilty for non-compliance of the above stated instructions dealing with the said circular. In addition one also cannot ignore that charge of theft of energy is a criminal charge. It has to be proved by cogent evidence as has been held in case H.V.P.N. through its Sub Divisional Officer (Op) Vs. Sanjeev Malik etc. 2005 (2) CPC 645. It has been laid down in the above mentioned case mere tampering of the seal or breaking of the seals of the meter is not the conclusive proof of theft of the energy. Under the circumstances of the case no fault can be found with the findings of the District Forum.” -5- Admittedly, the meter, which was allegedly tampered with by the respondent, had not been sent to M & T Lab to corroborate the authencity of the checking report. Sales Circular No.31/98 issued by the petitioner mandates that if there is any dispute regarding the tampering of seals and the inspection procedure, the decision of the M & T authorities of the Nigam duly constituted under the State shall be binding on the consumer but in this case no such report had been sought. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the fora below. Petitioner had failed to send the tampered meter to the M & T lab for corroboration, which casts a doubt regarding the version put forth by the petitioner. Dismissed. | 
