Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Electricity Act, 2003, Section 126, 127 -- Electricity theft - There is nothing to demonstrate on behalf of petitioner - complainant that there was any need for a prior notice before inspection or any factual inaccuracy in the findings of the inspecting team regarding tampering of the electricity meter, nor installation of..........
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Electricity Act, 1910, Section 35 -- Electricity bill - Energy theft - There is not even allegation of any seals being tempered in checking report - The only allegation was that a wooden gutka was inserted but the accuracy of the meter mentioned as OK - The mere allegation of attempt but the theft of energy having not proved..........
Electricity -- Theft - Electricity rules require that to prove the theft of electricity it is the basic requirement that the meter must have been checked from the concerned laboratory...........
Electricity supply -- Excess load - Electricity theft - Penalty - Connected load to the extent of 8.776 KW as against the sanctioned load of 1.8 KW - Complainant was giving energy illegally to two persons from his meter which was burnt, thus dead stop - He was also running a Toka machine - The FIR for the above said theft of energy was also lodged - In such circumstances..........
Electricity disconnection -- Electricity theft - On checking alleged tampering of the meter, broken seals etc. found - The department official did not send the meter to M&T Laboratory to pin point the actual defect in the working of the meter to support their findings - Complainant has been paying bill for 45 years without any complaint - There is no variation or..........
Electrical energy -- Theft of electric energy - Electricity bill - Penalty - Connection of the complainant found running slow by 5.15% during inspection by the Additional Superintending Engineer - Notice for an amount of Rs. 9613/ - issued to the complainant which was duly paid by him without any protest - Meter was checked by ME Lab. in presence of partner/representative..........
Electricity Act, 1910, Section 39, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 379, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR - Penalty imposed for tampering with seals of electricity meter - Penalty amount deposited - FIR lodged for theft of electricity - FIR quashed - As penalty has already been deposited thus continuance of criminal proceedings is nothing but..........
Electricity theft -- The meter was opened in M.E. Lab. in the presence of the son of the respondent - The paper seal, at that time, was found intact - There was no question of tampering with the meter - It was considered to be a case of measured theft as the main lead of current coil was made short by reducing the turns of the current coil - Held to be clear cut case of..........
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Electricity Act, 1910, Section 26(6) -- Electricity bill - There is no allegation of the respondent if the electric meter was tampered with or if the appellant was caught committing theft of electric energy - It was a case where there was difference/dispute as to whether the electric meter is or is not correct - The matter..........
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Electricity Act, 1910, Section 26(6) -- Electricity supply - Electricity theft - Meter was never referred to Electricity Inspector which is legal requirement in case of any dispute about the meter - Having failed to comply with the provisions of Section 26(6) of the 1910 Act allegation remain unsubstantiated/unproved by any..........
