Costs have been paid.

          Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, who was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Briefly stated the fact are that the respondent/complainant runs a factory for manufacture of emulsifiers and CABS in Mandideep.  It had taken power connection from the petitioner Electricity Board.  Since it involved heavy power consumption, the petitioner along with the meter had also installed an apparatus called CT/PT on its own DP structure inside the factory premises.  The said apparatus caught fire and got damaged.  Petitioner, vide bill dated 17.10.2001, demanded a sum of Rs.65,192/- from the complainant towards the cost of the apparatus.  Aggrieved by this, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, vide its order dated 28.11.2002, dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which, respondent/complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by the impugned order.  State Commission allowed the appeal by observing thus :

“Admittedly, the meter as also the CT/PT apparatus were the property of the respondent Board and if any such apparatus goes wrong the responsibility lies with the respondent Board to correct or replace the same.  It is true that under the General Conditions (No.19) the consumer is responsible for the safety of the meter from theft or damage.  Obviously, the consumer is expected not to cause any damage to the meter or the said instrument of CT/PT.  However, in the instant case there is absolutely no evidence to show that the complainant-consumer was in any manner responsible for the damage caused to CT/PT by fire.   Photographs of the instalment are produced for our perusal.  It is seen that the meter as also the CT/PT apparatus are affixed to a pole at the entrance of the premises of the complainant.  While the meter is fixed at a lower level, the CT/PT apparatus is fixed at a considerable height not reachable by an ordinary person.  There could be more than one causes for eruption of fire in the apparatus.  As per letter dated 5.9.2001 written by Additional Superintending Engineer, MP Electricity Board, Bhopal to the Additional Superintending Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board, Mandideep the spot was inspected by the officers of the MPEB on 16.8.2001.  However, no inspection report is filed to show that damage to the meter was caused on account of “something wrong having happened in the premises of the applicant.”  The MPSEB being super experts in the field of power generation and distribution were expected to find out the exact cause of fire which led to the burning of CT/PT.  No such cause could be detected or assigned by MPEB.  Their mere saying that “something wrong happened in the premises of the applicant which led to the burning of this CT/PT” is of no significance being vague.  The responsibility for the damage of the apparatus could not be fastened on the complainant and no demand for the cost of the apparatus could legally be made from him.  The impugned demand is liable to be quashed.”

          It is apparent from the reading of the order of the State Commission that the petitioner failed to produce any inspection report.  Merely saying that fire was caused on account of “something wrong having happened in the premises of the applicant” which led to the burning of the CT/PT apparatus is of no significance as it is not supported by any primary evidence.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Dismissed.