Vigilance Department of the respondent Board checked the premises of the petitioner and found that he was stealing electricity.  Checking staff found that the petitioner had reversed one phase and the connected load was found to be 34.981 KW against the sanctioned load of 29.835 KW.  A demand of Rs.2,39,182/- was raised, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. 

          District Forum allowed the complainant and stuck down the levy of penalty imposed on the petitioner along with costs.  Rs.500/- were awarded for harassment and Rs.1,000/- by way of costs.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission has allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order by recording the following findings :

“We have gone through the impugned order and taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and are of the view that the District Forum has not considered the real controversy involved in the case.  It is not a case of wrong reading recorded in the meter, rather it is a case where the complainant has reversed the meter reading already consumed by him through a wire.  It is also not disputed that complainant was having the load of 34.981 KW against the sanctioned load of 29.835 KW and in this way he was causing financial loss to the Nigam, therefore, the penalty was imposed upon the complainant as per the rules and regulations of the Nigam.  Theft of energy is a common feature these days.  Various devices have been developed by the persons committing theft of energy, which goes unchallenged for the shortcomings on the part of the department and some times due to procedural lapses.  Reversing of meter reading is a common feature, which even if detected, the courts take liberal view of the matter and grant benefits to the consumers.  This virtually amounts to encourage the consumers to commit theft of energy.  All electricity boards of the country are the victims of various types of theft committed by the users.  The courts are consumer friendly without appreciating the view of the Nigam/Board.  Our focus to this problem must be viewed in a positive manner, rather than leaning towards the consumers.  In the instant case, the vigilance staff headed by the Assistant Executive Engineer along with the SDO has checked the premises of the complainant and submitted the report.  The complainant has not stated that they have made a biased report against him for any reason.  In this view of the matter, we have no reason to disbelieve the version of the checking party who are responsible officers of the Nigam.  We feel that the observation of the District Forum observing the checking report as false, is not sustainable.”

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