Delhi High Court
Bansi Lal vs B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 17 March, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
Bench: Sanjiv Khanna
34
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4103/2007
% Date of decision : 17th March, 2010.
BANSI LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.K. Goel, Advocate.
versus
B.S.E.S.RAJDHANI POWER LTD. .... Respondent
Through: Ms. Anjali Sharma,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing and setting aside the speaking order dated 15.03.2007 and assessment bill of theft/meter tampering of Rs.99,516/-. The relevant portion of speaking order reads:
" The case has been examined and found that the meter no. 13247715 was installed on 05.05.2005. Consumption records shows that the meter has not been recording consumption w.e.f. 28.08.2006 and the average recorded consumption for the period 20.12.2005 to 27.12.2006 i.e. before stopping of meter show an average recorded consumption of 58 units per month which has been found 9.4% of the assessed consumption. As per the meter testing report, Plastic & Hologram Seals were found tampered, EL REV LED was found cut, External Resistance was found WPC No.4103/2007 Page 1 in PCB between CT wire and PCB and CT wire cut was found. Thus, artificial means of dishonest abstraction of energy has been detected. It is the responsibility of the consumer to protect the meter from tampering and to keep it safe custody.
Consumer has been beneficiary of the tampered meter. Consumer submission that he was not aware that meter was tampered with does not absolve him from the case of Dishonest Abstraction of Energy."
2. Pursuant to the complaint dated 22.01.2007 made by the petitioner, the Officers of the Respondent, discom replaced the old meter and installed a new meter on 02.02.2007. The meter change report was prepared at the spot. As per the meter change report form, the reasons of replacement of meter are required to be mentioned. The form also has a column of remarks. The meter change report does not mention that any seal in the replaced meter was found to be tampered with or damaged.
3. Thus, on 02.02.2007 when the meter was replaced and the officer who had undertaken the said exercise did not find that the meter was tampered or damaged.
4. It is a contention of the petitioner that he visited the office of the respondent, on 09.02.2007 for investigation/testing in terms of letter given to him on 02.02.2007 but no test/investigation was done in his presence. On the other hand, respondent-discom has submitted that WPC No.4103/2007 Page 2 the meter was tested on 09.02.2007 and tampering of seals and internal parts was noticed. Respondent-discom has placed on record the Meter Test/Analysis Report. The said report is dated 12.02.2007 and not 09.02.2007.
5. Counsel for the respondent-discom states that the meter was tested on 09.02.2007 and a report was prepared on 12.02.2007. This is not mentioned in the said report. The date 12.02.2007 is mentioned at two places in the report, on the top of the report and also as the stated as the date when the data from the meter was downloaded for testing. Thus the test/investigation was done on 12.02.2007 and not on 09.02.2007. Admittedly no notice for testing of the meter on 12.02.2007 was given to the petitioner. The stand of the respondent that the meter was tested on 09.02.2007 obviously is incorrect and false .
6. A careful examination of the meter test report reveals that against the columns „Plastic Seals‟ and „Hologram seals‟ letter "OK" have been/were written. However, the letter "OK" against the column „Plastic Seals‟ has been scored of and the word "found tampered"
were written on top. Against the column „Hologram seals‟ both words "OK" and "found tampered" are clearly visible. The test report therefore is contradictory. On the other hand, it supports the WPC No.4103/2007 Page 3 contention of the petitioner that both the seals were found intact and not tampered at the time of inspection and even when the meter was tested. It is an admitted case that without removing the seals it is not possible for anyone to enter and tamper with the internal parts of the meter. Once it is held that the seals were found to be intact and not tampered with, the other finding in the test report that EL REV LED was found was found cut, external resistance was found and CD wire was found cut become doubtful and suspicious, if not irrelevant. The allegations against the petitioner/consumer are serious and in view of the aforesaid discrepancies in the Meter Test/Analysis Report and the fact that the meter changing report does not mention and show that the seals were found tampered with or damaged, I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner. After the meter was removed the same had remained in the custody of the respondent-discom.
7. The meter test reports records that accuracy test was not done. The report does not state why the accuracy test was not done or the condition of the meter was such that accuracy test could not be performed or had failed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent during the course of the hearing submitted that the meter was burnt and therefore the meter change report does not record that the seals were tampered with and WPC No.4103/2007 Page 4 damaged. This is not recorded in the meter change report or the meter testing report. This argument is an afterthought and has to be rejected.
9. The speaking order suffers from another fallacy. The speaking Order records that on the basis of downloaded data, the meter did not record consumption with effect from 28.08.2006. However, the Assessing Officer thereafter has computed average consumption as recorded by the meter for the period 20.12.2005 to 27.12.2006. The Assessing Officer forgot that as per his own finding the meter did not record any consumption w.e.f. 28.08.2006 and therefore average consumption as per the meter reading could be only computed for the period till 28.08.2006 and not for the period thereafter.
10. Lastly, the speaking order does not take into account the current consumption pattern after the new meter was installed.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it is apparent that the speaking order does not take into account relevant and material facts and ignores them. It is one sided and cannot be sustained. The speaking order and the impugned bill raised by the respondent- discom are therefore quashed.
12. Petitioner had deposited Rs. 30,000/- with the respondent-
discom pursuant to the interim order. The said amount will be WPC No.4103/2007 Page 5
credited to the account of the petitioner in the next running bill.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 17, 2010 Savita/P WPC No.4103/2007 Page 6