SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (P), UHBVNL versus DHARAM PAL

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1175 · Decided: 15-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
'
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (P), UHBVNL 
v. 
DHARAMPAL 
NOVEMBER 15, 2006 
[ARIJITP/ :;AYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Electricity Supply Act, 1910: 
A 
B 
s. 26(6)-Reference to Electrical Inspector-Tampering with electricity 
meter-Demand raised purporting to be charges for actual consumption of C 
energy-Held, tampering with meter is not covered by s.26(6)-Therefore, 
reference in terms of s.26(6) was not called for-Consumer Protection Act, 
1986. 
The inspecting staff of the appellant found that there was tampering with D 
the electricity meter installed at the factory premises of the respondent, and, 
therefore, raised a demand ofRs.1,07,326/- purporting to be charges payable 
for actual consumption of energy. The respondent filed a complaint before 
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and prayed that reference 
should be made to the Electrical Inspector in terms of s.26(6) of the Indian 
Electricity Act, 1910. The District Forum held that demand was illegal and E 
instead the reference ought to have been made in terms of s.26 (6) of the Act 
The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes 
Redressal Commission and so was its revision by the National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission. 
Jn the appeal filed by the appellant it was contended that in the case of F 
tampering there was no scope for reference to the Electrical Inspector in 
terms of s.26(6). 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
. HELD: It has clearly been held by this Court that the case of tampering G 
with the meter is not covered by Section 26(6) of the Electricity Supply Act, 
1910. Jn this view of the matter, the District Forum, State Commission and 
the National Commission were not justified in holding that a reference in 
terms of Section 26(6) of the Act was called for. The orders passed by these 
1175 
H 
1176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A authorities are quashed. (1183-A-B) 
* M.P. Electricity Board v. Basantihai, (1988) 1 SCC 23; Bombay 
Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking v. Laffans (India) (P) Ltd. & 
Anr., (2005] 4 SCC 327; State of W.B. and Ors. v. Rupa Ice Factory (P) Ltd. 
and Ors., (2004) 10 SCC 635; Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. UP. 
B State Electricity Board and Anr., (1997] 6 SCC 740; and J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. 
v. Bihar State Electricity Board, (2003) 5 SCC 226, relied on. 
c 
MP.E.B. & Ors. v. Smt. Basantihai, AIR (1988) SC 71, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4979 of2006. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 12-5-2004 of the National 
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition 
No. 487 of 2004. 
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh, Vikrant Hooda and Ugra 
D Shankar Prasad for the Appellant. 
Dr. Ramesh K. Haritash, Dharam Singh and Dr. Kailash Chand for the 
' · 
Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT P ASAY AT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short the 'Commission'). By 
the impugned order, the Commission dismissed the revision petition filed in 
F terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act'). 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
The respondent is a consumer of electricity and a meter was installed 
by the appellant at his factory premises. An inspection was done on 04.07.2000. 
G The Inspecting staff found that there was tampering with the meter and, 
therefore, a demand of Rs.l,07,326/- was made purporting to be charges 
payable for actual consumption of energy. Questioning the demand, a complaint 
was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna 
Nagar, Jagadhiri, Haryana (in short 'District Forum'). 
H 
j 
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (P), UHBVNL v. DHARAM PAL [PASA YAT, J. ]1177 
The basic stand of the respondent as complainant was that prior to .the A 
inspection, on 02.07.2000 there was a sparking in the C.T. Box installed at his 
factory premises and the complainant immediately informed the appellant and 
requested for rectification of the defect. The complainant had also given a 
letter dated 2.7 .2000 to the department in this behalf and since the meter was 
defective the appellant should have rectified the meter. Instead of doing that, B 
the demand was raised for alleged tampering with the meter. With reference 
to the inspection report it was averred that the seals w':!re foun

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.