Electricity meter

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003,-THE OCCUPIER OF THE PREMISES IS ENTITLED FOR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY IN HIS NAME, IF THE OWNER REFUSED TO TAKE CONNECTION IN HIS NAME = Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is very clear that it is the duty of every licencee to give supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of any premises within its area.= the occupier of the premises is entitled as of her own right under Section 43 to supply of electricity and respondent No. 1 should have ensured that such supply was restored to the petitioner after complying with all necessary formalities as provided under the Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder.= In case, the owner of the premises for any reason is not willing for supply of electricity in his name then the supply shall be made in the name of the petitioner who is the occupant of the premises and the meter shall also be installed in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner will be liable for all charges of consumption of electricity.

‘ PUBLISHED IN http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.3 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO(s). 103 OF 2013 DR. MEENA CHAUDHARY @DR. MEENA P.N.SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUS BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With application … Continue reading

The perusal of the inspection report dated 25.9.2001 reveals that the meter was got installed by the complainant inside the hospital whereas as per rules it was to be installed at the front portion of the hospital. In other words the complainant was getting benefit of the hole in the meter by getting the meter installed inside so that theft of energy could be easily made. It is well settled principle of law that a consumer in whose custody the meter is provided by the Nigam is under a legal obligation to keep it intact and any tempering with it directly or indirectly shall be termed theft of energy under the circumstances of the case. In the present case admittedly the checking was conducted by the Vigilance staff in the company of other officials of the Nigam and their report cannot be disbelieved without any cogent, convincing and corroborating evidence contrary to it. The complainant in the present case has miserably failed to disclose as to what was the reason for developing a hole inside the meter. Checking report dated 25.9.2001 which is signed by the complainant as well as the members of the checking party, is sufficient to prove it a case of theft of energy. The observations of the District Consumer Forum, Sirsa that the seals were found intact and therefore, there was no question of committing theft of electric energy but this observation of the District Forum is not sustainable for the reason that it is a novel way of committing theft of energy because consumer inserts some hard object through the hole of the meter to stop the movement of the disc in order to abstract energy dishonestly without tempering of the seal. It is further observed that by drilling a hole it is the complaint who is to be benefited with respect to committing of theft of energy by inserting some hard object in the hole of the meter to stop the movement of the disc. It is not the case of the complainant that at the time of installation of the meter the said hole was there. It is also not the case of the complainant that the hole has developed due to any climatic change or with passage of time. The appellants-opposite parties have produced the meter in question which has a drilling hole in it. Admittedly the drilling process is the outcome of the nefarious and illegal designs of complainant to commit theft of energy through the hole. No person would drill a hole in the meter unless he gets any benefit from it. Hence this case is distinguishable from the observation made in Gautam Plastic and Ram Nath case (supra).

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 2390 OF 2010 (From the Order dated 11.05.2010 in Appeal No. 2994/2002 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) Dr. Laxman Dass Bansal                                                                           Petitioner C/o Bansal Hospital Old Bus Stand, Rania Tahsil Rania Rania District Sirsa Versus 1. Executive Engineer                                                                                Respondents (OP) Division Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sirsa Distt. Sirsa   2. SDO (OP) Sub-Division Ph-1, Sas Nagar Branch … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,297 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com