Electric meter was installed on a pole outside the house of the respondent consumer.  The meter was checked by the vigilance staff of the petitioner and was found to have been tampered with.  The petitioner imposed a penalty of Rs.18,542/-.  Respondent, being aggrieved, challenged the same by filing the complaint before the District Forum.  District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order by observing thus :

“It being not disputed that the meter was installed outside the premises alongwith meter of other consumers and in iron box under lock and key of Ops-appellants, no liability could be fastened upon the consumer for mishandling etc.  Therefore when the meter was installed outside the premises and was in the custody of the Ops-appellants, any mishandling are otherwise tampering could not be attributed to the consumer.  Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order.”

        The State Commission, relying upon the circular issued by the petitioner itself, has held that the consumer could not be held responsible for the security/safety of the meter installed on the poles and the burden was on the petitioner to prove that the consumer was responsible for the tampering of the meter.  Admittedly, the petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that the respondent had in any way tampered with the meter which was installed on the pole outside his house, especially when the meter was under the lock and key of the petitioner.  Dismissed.