Complainant/petitioner had an electric meter bearing No. JCT-21/04 81 (NRS) with sanctioned load of 33.44 KW at his premises.  The meter installed at the premises of the complainant got burnt and the burnt meter was replaced with a new meter with CT PT attachments vide MCO dated 6.6.2002.   The meter was removed in the presence of the petitioner.  The burnt meter was to be sent to the ME Lab for testing.   The petitioner gave his consent vide Exh. O2 that the meter may be checked in his absence in the ME lab and he would abide by the report of the ME Lab.  The meter was checked in the ME Lab on 5.12.2002.  The report of the ME lab reads as under :

“The meter is received in packed and sealed condition in a card board box bearing the paper seal No. 047530 dated 6.6.2002 signed by Kuldip Singh consumer as well as Sh. Varinder Saini, AJE of the appellant. The paper seal affixed on the card board box found intact. The signature of the respondent/consumer on the paper seal was compared with the consent letter which was taken. The paper seal of the card board box was torn for the internal inspection of the meter.  The ME seals of the meter not tally with the original seals and the same were found fake. The ME seals of the meter were broken and the meter was opened for internal inspection. Scratches were found on thousand digit of the meter. The consumer was controlling the consumption by tempering the seals as well as digits of the meter and was committing theft of energy.”

Based on the report of the ME lab, a demand of Rs.96,385/- was raised vide Exh.O3.  Petitioner deposited the amount with the respondent without any protest and after admitting the report of the ME lab filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and quashed the impugned penalty memo and directed the respondent to adjust the amount in future bills.

          Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal, which has been allowed.  The State Commission has reversed the order of the District Forum and held that in view of the report submitted by the ME lab, petitioner was guilty of theft of energy.

          We have perused the letter Exh.O2 as well as the report of ME lab.  Petitioner was given due opportunity to appear before the ME lab but the petitioner gave his consent that the meter be tested in his absence in the ME lab and he would abide by the ME lab report.  The meter was tested and it was found that the meter had been tampered with and the petitioner was controlling the consumption of electricity by tampering with the seals of the meter.

            In view of the report submitted by the ME lab, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.