Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. Electricity Board vs Kusum Lata on 31 August, 2015
SA-307-1997
(M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs KUSUM LATA)
31-08-2015
Shri Sharad Punj, counsel for the appellant.
Heard.
On 19.9.2013, this appeal was listed for final hearing on the
following substantial question of law:-
â Whether the finding recorded by the
Courts below that Section 26 of the Indian
Electricity Act,1910 would apply to a case of
theft of electricity under section 39 of the
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is perverse ?
The reason for framing this issue is the contention of the
appellant that since it was a case of theft of electricity, there was
no necessity for the appellant to have put a check meter and even
if they have done so and have fixed the quantum of theft of
electricity, they were entitled to raise the bills which they have
rightly raised. They were not required to go to the Electricity
Inspector for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute since it
was a case of theft and case was covered under section 39 of the
Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
On going through the record, I am of the considered view that
once the Electricity Inspection Team found the electricity meter
defective or tampered with then they were entitled to file the FIR
which the appellant has done. However, putting-up the check
meter was done by themselves and it was for the purposes of
checking the electricity meter which was being installed and
which was found tampered with, was giving right reading or not.
Thereafter, once the check meter was installed, they could have
simply used that evidence for the purposes of conviction of the
respondent/consumer. However, they proceeded further, besides
prosecuting the case for electricity theft. They also wanted the consumer to pay the difference of electricity charges by taking into consideration the meter which was found to be defective and the readings in the check meter.
In such circumstances, the case was covered by section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which reads as under :-
â26. Meters; (1)......
(2).........
(3).........
(4)..........
(5).........
(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in subsection (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of Such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during Such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity:
Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days I notice of his intention so to do. â This provision requires that for the purposes of adjudication of a dispute as to whether the electricity meter which was found to be tampered or giving correct entries or not and whether the entries given by the check meter was right, they ought to have referred the case to the Electricity Inspector, which admittedly has not been done in this case.
I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the courts below and the question framed is answered against the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(MOOL CHAND GARG) JUDGE