Complainant/petitioner is having an industrial connection bearing AC No. G-4-22.  The electric meter of the petitioner was burnt on 08.01.2001.  Petitioner moved an application with the respondents to install a new electric meter in place of old meter.  On receiving the application, respondents removed the old meter and allegedly assured the petitioner that new electric meter will be installed.  However, instead of installing the new meter, respondents slapped a penalty of Rs.47,296/- on the petitioner.  According to the respondents, petitioner had intentionally burnt the electric meter in order to hide the fact that he had committed the theft of energy. 

Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.  District Forum allowed the complaint and quashed the penalty.  Respondents were directed to refund the amount of penalty deposited to the petitioner along with interest @ 12% per annum.  Respondents were also directed to raise the bill for the period in which the matter was lying in defective condition on the basis of average of last six months preceding the defect.

          Respondents being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum by observing thus :

“From the documents produced on record, it is a well proved case of theft of energy in a novel way adopted by the complainant and as such the penalty imposed upon the complainant by the opposite parties for committing theft of energy causing loss to the State Exchequer, cannot be termed as ‘deficiency of service’.”

Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present petition.

On a contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of appeal under the scheme for ‘Out of Court Settlement of Pending Cases’ the petitioner had settled the dispute and paid the settled amount, notice was issued to the respondents. 

Respondents put in appearance in response to the issuance of notice.  Respondents took the stand that no settlement had been arrived at between the parties.  In view of the stand taken by the respondents, we directed the respondents to file an affidavit to the effect that no settlement had been arrived at between the parties.  Mr. Rajbir Saroha, SDO (OP), Sub Division, UHBVNL, Mustafabad, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana has filed the affidavit stating that during the pendency of the appeal the respondents had launched a scheme for out of court settlement vide Circular No. U39/03.  Petitioner applied under the scheme.  As per the scheme, petitioner could settle the case by payment of 50% of the disputed amount along with simple interest @ 12% per annum.  Petitioner had deposited the sum of Rs.18,920/- on 15.01.2001 being 40% of the disputed amount and 10% of the disputed amount along with interest to the tune of Rs.6373/- was also deposited on 31.10.2003.  However, it was stated that sum of Rs.20,185/- is yet to be deposited by the petitioner towards current bill and other charges.

From the affidavit filed by the respondents, it is evident that the petitioner had deposited 50% of the disputed amount along with interest upto 31.10.2003.  The sum of Rs.20,185/- is due towards the current bill and other charges and has nothing to do with the dispute regarding imposition of penalty.  Since the dispute between the parties had been settled under the scheme of settlement, respondents are not justified in claiming the amount of Rs.47,296/-.  State Commission has disposed of the appeal without taking note of the statement arrived at between the parties. 

Since the State Commission has disposed of the appeal without taking note of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is ordered to be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.  So far as the issue of any other amount is concerned, the parties are put at liberty to resolve the same in accordance with law.

Revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.