Complainant – Petitioner is the consumer of electricity  supplied by Respondents under account No.UG-16/0741, for a sanctioned load of 7 KW.  On 7^th January, 2003   Meter installed at the premises of the Petitioner became defective.  Petitioner moved an application to Respondent No.2 to replace the  defective meter with an electronic meter.  Respondents replaced the meter on 14^th January, 2003.  On 17^th January 2003, officials of the Respondents checked the electric connection of the Petitioner.   Petitioner received a notice bearing memo dated 18.1.2003 whereby Respondents demanded a sum of Rs.3,92,994/- from him on account of theft of energy for six months.  Petitioner filed the complaint alleging that the Respondent had checked the electric meter in his absence.  That no copy of the checking report was supplied to him.   That as per clause 24 of the terms and conditions of the supply of electricity, Respondents were required to issue notice of assessment to the Petitioner.  It is alleged that the Respondent  issued the demand notice directing Petitioner to pay 100%    amount of penalty failing which his electric connection shall be disconnected.  Whereas electric connection had  already been  disconnected on 17.1.2003.

          Respondents, on being served, filed the written statement admitting that the meter of  Petitioner  was replaced with an electronic meter on 14.1.2003.   It was averred that on  17.1.2003 Shri P.K. Kadian, AE, Vigilance along with other staff checked the premises of the Petitioner and found  the outer cover of MCB and terminal covered opened.  It was  also averred  that the checking party also found  the incoming terminal connected with  the outgoing wires  of load to abstract the energy unlawfully.    That the outgoing wires were removed from outgoing terminals and were inserted into incoming terminals.  Connected load was found  to be 19.368 KW as against the sanctioned load of 7 KW.  It was averred that after removing the meter from the site, the same was packed in cardboard box, which was signed by the raiding party and was handed over  to Ashok Kumar, J.E.  It was also averred that the checking was done in the presence of Petitioner who signed the checking report in token of its correctness and also received a copy thereof.  It was admitted that a demand of Rs.3,92,994/-  on account of theft of energy  had been created against Petitioner.

          District Forum partly allowed the complaint.  Impugned notice Ex.C2   so far as it pertained to the penalty amount  of  Rs.3,87,534/- on account of theft of energy was set aside and Respondents were directed not to recover the said amount from the Petitioner.  However, Respondents  were held entitled to recover the amount  of Rs.5460/- on account of unauthorized extension of load  from 7 KW to 19.368 KW.

          Aggrieved by the Order passed by District Forum, Respondents filed appeal before the State Commission, which by the impugned order set aside the Order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal by observing thus:

“Checking has not been denied by the complainant.  Only penalty has been challenged.  Perusal of the file shows that  show cause notice was served upon complainant-respondent and it bears signature  on having received the show cause notice on 20.1.2003 along with provisional assessment order.  Checking report on the file clearly shows that how theft was being committed by inserting outgoing wires in the incoming terminal and thus the meter was bye-passed and put to dead stop.   Report further finds mention that it has been signed by the complainant putting endorsement of having received report in his own hand.   The fact that report bears signature of complainant and complainant still denying having received the report, despite the fact that report finds mention of complainant having received one copy of the report, clearly indicates that copy of complaint was supplied to the complainant.  The receipt of report by the complainant and complainant putting signatures on the inspection clearly amounts to admission on his part about the correctness of the report.  Had report been not correctly prepared there was no compulsion upon the complainant not to put any objection or remarks with regard to incorrectness of the report.

Learned District Forum has given contradictory findings with regard to the checking report.  Learned District Forum upheld the report to the extent that there was unauthorized extension of load however disbelieved the report with regard to the theft without any justifiable reason.  Learned District Forum observing that the complainant was not to be blamed, if the outgoing wire was connected with the incoming terminals. This observation appears to be contrary to the record and contrary to the factual position.  Once the outgoing wires were connected with incoming terminal, certainly the power would pass directly without passing through the meter.  Therefore observation of the District Forum that connecting outgoing wires to incoming terminal does not amount to theft cannot be accepted rather observations prove the theft of energy.  The beneficiary being the complainant meter was being bye-passed, it is the complainant who is to be blamed and not the officials of OPs-appellants.  Complainant has not preferred any appeal against observation of District Forum admitting the outgoing wires have been connected with incoming terminal and that being so, it would rather be another admission on the part of complainant that he was committing theft of energy.  Under these circumstances the basis of District Forum in coming into conclusion that there was deficiency in service and directing OP not to recover the penalty amount cannot sustain and are set aside.   The appeal is allowed and the complaint stands dismissed”.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Checking by the           Vigilance Department is not denied by the Petitioner.  Checking report was signed by the Petitioner with an endorsement of having received the report in his own hand.   In view of this, the assertion made by the Petitioner that checking was done in his absence, cannot be accepted.  Perusal of the file further shows that show cause notice was served upon the Petitioner on 20^th  January 2003 along with provisional assessment order.  Checking report   clearly shows that theft was being committed by inserting outgoing wires in the incoming terminal bye passing the meter.  District Forum upheld the checking report to the extent that there was unauthorized extension of load, however, disbelieved the report with regard to the theft of energy by observing that Petitioner could not be blamed, if the outgoing wire was connected with incoming terminal.   We agree with the observation made by the State Commission that once the outgoing wires were connected with incoming terminal, certainly the power would pass directly without passing through the meter.   In view of this, Petitioner was certainly guilty of theft of energy.   Petitioner did not challenge the finding of the District Forum that he had connected load of 19.368 KW as against the sanctioned load of 7 KW, at the time of inspection, which also shows that   Petitioner was committing theft of energy.    Under the circumstances, Respondents were entitled to impose the penalty.  State Commission has rightly set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.  No merit, dismissed.