M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing orders dated 20.03.2007 (P-2) passed by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the petitioner-Nigam and the order dated 17.04.2007 (P-3) rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner-Nigam. A further prayer for quashing order dated 21.09.2007 (P-4) has also been made which is passed by Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana holding that the officers of the petitioner-Nigam namely, Sh. Shiv Kumar LM, Sh. Krishan Lal Meter Reader & Sh. Sant Kumar, ALM are responsible for planting the case of theft on the consumer-respondent No. 4 due to their mala fide intention.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the consumer-respondent No. 4 Sh. Som Nath was provided with a tube- well electric connection bearing account No. MK2-29 for horticulture in the month of September 2004. The petitioner-Nigam has asserted that on raid of his premises on 6.06.2006 it was found that the meter installed by it was tampered with to abstract energy illegally and dishonestly by consumer-respondent No. 4, because it was found that all the four numbers firm seals were tampered with. The face wire of all the four numbers firms seals existing on the meter were found cut and re-affixed with adhesive. Accordingly, the meter was removed and a case of theft of energy was made out. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Op), Shahzadpur imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,20,000/- on the consumer- respondent No. 4. The petitioner-Nigam filed an appeal before the Chief Engineer (Operation)-respondent No. 3 who rejected the same vide order dated 21.11.2006. The Chief Engineer while deciding the appeal has also found the officers of the Petitioner-Nigam responsible which is evident from the perusal of the concluding paras I-VI which read thus :- I. The meter installed at the premises of the appellant is found to be tampered and usage of energy through ibid meter tantamount to the offence of theft of electricity under section 135 of EA-2003 enforced by UHBVN sales circular No. U-2/2006 and its amendments thereof. II. The initial/authorised meter of the appellant i.e., Sh. Som Nath was not available at site and was changed at the site with Avon Make Meter without issuing of meter change order by the S/Divn. In addition to the lapse of the concerned officials, the consumer cannot be ruled out of his responsibility for illegal replacement of energy meter as the responsibility of safe custody of the meter lies with consumer. III. The consumption pattern of the consumer indicated the inaccurate recording of the meter reading of the premises. The concerned meter reader, Sh. Krishan Kumar has recorded fictitious reading of the consumer A/c No. MK2-29 and has not reported regarding replacement of authorised/initial meter by illegal meter. IV. Similarly, Sh. Shiv Ram, ALM, working as meter reader is responsible for not reporting regarding replacement of meter of Sh. Dharam Singh, Village Khurd A/c No. LK3-93. V. The above mentionerd arguments and representation of the appellant and officials taken on record confirm the offence of theft of electricity under Section 135 of EA-2003 as enforced by S.C. No. U-2/2005 and its amendments thereof at the premises of the appellant, Sh. Som Nath for which the appellant Sh. Som Nath and Nigam's officials, Sh. Shiv Kumar, LM, Sh. Krishan Lal, Mete Reader and Sh. Sant Kumar, ALM are responsible and found to be involved in the act of theft of electricity. VI. In view of the above, the appellant cannot be absolved of his duties and responsibilities as a consumer and his representation cannot be considered for giving any relief or refund of amount of compounding which has already been deposited by him. The concerned officials, Sh. Shiv Kumar, LM, Sh. Krishan Kumar, MR and Sh. Sant Ram, ALM are liable for necessary disciplinary action for the deliberate lapses in performing their official responsibilities. The consumer-respondent No. 4 then filed a complaint before Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (for brevity to be referred as Consumer Forum) under Regulation 7 of Haryana Electricity Regulation Commission (Guidelines for Establishment of Forum for Redressal of the Grievances of the Consumers) and (Electricity Ombudsman), Regulation 2004 (for brevity 'the Regulation') which have been framed under Section 181 read with Section 42 of the Electricity Act of 2003 (for brevity 'the Act'). The Forum while directing the re-investigation observed in para 2.2 that the Chief Engineer in his order dated 21.11.2006 (P-1) could not give justice to the consumer-respondent No. 4 by upholding the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer. According to the Forum the Chief Engineer shielded mischievous official Sh. Shiv Kumar LM who had been replacing existing meters with unauthorised meters. The Forum then recorded its findings in para 3.1 and 3.2 which are as under :- 3.1 The original healthy electronic meter installed at the premises was removed by Shiv Kumar L/man without MCO and the meter installed was one which was illegally removed from another premises of Sh. Dharam Singh of village Khurd. 3.2 The appellate authority has not gone into the details of the case and passed order as under :- In addition the lapse of the concerned official, the consumer cannot be ruled out of his responsibility for illegal replacement of energy meter as the responsibility of safe custody of meter lies with the consumer". Once the meter is remove & installed by a Lineman Incharge of the area, the consumer cannot object or stop him from doing so. The question here is not the safe custody of the meter but the tampering of a meter by the authorised employee of the Nigam. Had the original meter of the consumer been stolen, the deptt. could fix responsibility of the consumer. but Here the meter has been replaced by the Lineman Incharge of the area with a meter removed from another premises of Sh. Dharam Singh of village Khurd in an unauthorised maner. It is not possible to seal such a meter after removal without tampering with the seals of meter cover. As a matter of fact an electronic meter with push type MCB can not be removed from a premises without tampering with MCB seals.
(3.) THE petitioner-Nigam instead of complying with the direction for re- investigation filed a review petition which was dismissed on 17.04.2007 (P-3) by the Forum. The Forum clarified that it has decided the case of the consumer-respondent No. 4 on 20.3.2007 by disposing of his complaint who has been a consumer of electricity on the point of 'deficiency of service' in exercise of power conferred by Section 181 read with Sub-sections 5 to 8 of Section 42 of the Act. Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed.;