Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

        Respondent had taken an electricity connection from the petitioner.  Petitioner sent a Demand Notice dated 31.7.2006 for Rs.47,523/- with compounding amount of Rs.23,264/- totaling Rs.70,787/-.  Respondent challenged the demand inter alia raising the objection that the complainant never used the connection for non-domestic supply; that the complainant neither committed theft of electricity nor tampered with the seals of the meter; that no checking was ever conducted in the presence of the respondent; that there was nothing on record to show that the meter was running slow; that only the Chief Electrical Inspector was competent to do so; that no prior notice was issued before removing the meter.

        District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the deposited amount to the complainant within a period of one month and raise a fresh demand as per the readings recorded by the new meter installed in the premises of the complainant after checking.

        Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission dismissed the appeal inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that the meter was running slow or theft of energy.  The State Commission came to this conclusion on the ground that the petitioner had failed to send the meter to M&T lab for checking to verify and authenticate the checking report. 

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Since the petitioner had failed to send the meter to M&T lab for checking to verify and authenticate the checking report, the petitioner has failed to substantiate the contents of the checking report.  No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.