Aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, -2- Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. 2868 of 2004, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The facts and circumstances of the case, which led to the filing of the complaint and then passing of two orders by the District Forum and the State Commission have been amply-noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end. 3. Going by the complainant’s version and totally ignoring the version of the opposite party-Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and the material placed before it, the District Forum allowed the complaint by quashing the demand of Rs.1,57,153/- and thereafter awarded a compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation. Aggrieved by the said order, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission on a proper consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the material obtaining on record, has allowed the appeal by observing as under : -3- “Admittedly, the checking was conducted by the Vigilance Staff of the Nigam in presence of the complainant. This fact further finds support from the checking report dated 3.3.2002 which is signed by the complainant. It is also not disputed that the penalty was imposed upon the complainant in view of the report received from the M&T Lab. UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar. It is not the case of the complainant that he had made any representation to the authorities of the Nigam and he straightway filed the present complaint alleging it a case of deficiency of service. The complainant has nowhere alleged that the officials of the Nigam had any grudge against him for his false implication in the present case of stealing energy. It is a case wherein the checking was conducted by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Vigilance), Ambala, a high ranking officer of the Nigam who is an expert engineer from the Vigilance Wing. Thus, the demand of the impugned penalty in a case of dishonest abstraction of the electricity energy cannot be termed as deficiency of service. Where dishonest intention of abstracting of electricity energy is proved on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, as is proved in the instant case. As a sequel to our aforesaid discussions, we hold that the appellants-opposite parties were justified in imposing the impugned penalty upon the complainant. The District Consumer Forum has not considered the factual position on record and as such the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.” 4. We have heard Mr. Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. The main plank of -4- his arguments is that the meter which was removed after the vigilance checking, was not put in a sealed container before it was sent to the testing laboratory and, secondly, there was unusual delay of about 8 months in getting it tested from the Testing Laboratories. His last submission is that testing of the meter was not done in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative. We have noted down these submissions only to be rejected because going by the material obtaining on record, we have no manner of doubt that Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd must have followed the due procedure as enjoined upon them under the Electricity Rules. It appears to us that the complainant was engaged in unlawful and unauthorized extraction of energy by dubious means, i.e. by tempering the meter installed for recording the consumption of electricity for a floor mill for which he has taken a commercial connection. Therefore, the defence taken by the complainant is untenable. In our view, such a consumer is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of a consumer fora. The order passed by the State Commission is fully justified and suffers from no illegality, material -5- irregularity or jurisdictional error, which calls for any interference by this Commission. The revision petition is dismissed in limini. | 
