Inspecting Team of the respondent checked the meter of the petitioner and, prima facie, found that the meter had been tampered and was running slow. An inspection note was prepared which was signed by the petitioner. The meter was sealed in the presence of the petitioner and sent to the M&T lab for testing. A demand of Rs.40,592/- was raised for unauthorized use of electricity, which was deposited by the petitioner under protest. Thrice the notice was sent to the petitioner to be present in the M&T lab but the petitioner did not appear. Meter was checked in the M&T lab regarding tampering and accuracy in the absence of the petitioner, which gave the following report : - 2 - “3. Healthiness of seals. Both the seals provided on meter body are tempered by putting sealing were and refixing it will the use of adhesive material. 5. Remarks. Accuracy of meter in question has been checked on electronic test bench compatible with computer and meter found running 50% slow. Hence it is a clear case of theft of electricity.” District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.40,592/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of deposit till realization. Rs.10,000/- were awarded by way of compensation. Respondents, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission has reversed the order of the District Forum by observing as under : “The plea being raised by complainant-respondent that the notice fell short by seven days the co9mplaiant was only trying to wriggle out from the factual position, which he has signed at the time of checking. Even if the notice was short by the prescribed period of seven day as per sale circular, complainant was given notices thrice and on none of the dates complainant presented himself before the M & T Laboratory for checking in his - 3 - presence. One who expects equity must do the equity. Some sale circular was sought to be pressed stating that the checking officials was not competent. This plea was only available in the case of specific raiding party, however in case of routine checking the plea was not available. Judgment Punjab State Electricity Board Versus Daljit Singh Kaur 2004 (1) 511 was relied upon with regard to the manner of sealing and packing of the meter. Even this judgment is of no help as while removing the meter the checking team has given specific note that the meter was removed and packed with tape and with seals and signature of checking party as well as of the complainant who was present were obtained. The fact that the complainant singed the sealing and packing of meter without any abjection is certainly indicative that complainant did not object to the manner of packing the meter. Thus, we feel that learned District Forum Committed error while allowing the complaint. Therefore, order cannot be sustain and is set aside. The appeal is allowed, complaint stands dismissed.” We agree with the view taken by the fora below. The meter was checked and sealed in the presence of the petitioner. It was sent to the M&T lab for testing. Petitioner was informed thrice about the date fixed for testing the meter in the M&T lab. Petitioner, in spite of notice, did not attend the testing at M&T lab. - 4 - The M&T lab, on checking, found that the seals had been tampered and the meter was running slow by 50%. The report of the M&T lab squarely proves that the meter had been tampered and was running slow and the petitioner was drawing the electricity unauthorizedly. No merits. Dismissed. | 
