Mere Possibility Of Meter Tampering Not Enough To Prove Electricity Theft By Consumer: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that an electricity company cannot raise theft bills or recover such charges from a consumer merely on an assumption of meter tampering.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Executive Engineer of Gujarat Electricity Board (now Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.) against a trial court order which had rejected its claim of electricity theft while relying on a laboratory report which stated that a plastic strip "can be inserted" in the gap between meter cover and glass. 

Justice Devan M Desai said:

“Defendants' assertion is that the plaintiffs have dishonestly used electric energy. Such positive assertion has to be proved by the defendants and not negatively proved by the plaintiffs… Only on report that a plastic strip can be inserted in the gap between meter cover and glass is not sufficient to establish that consumer was involved in the activity of theft of electric energy… Supplementary bill was issued pending suit without any explanation and the reason which has been canvassed by learned advocate for the appellants is also not a justifiable explanation.”

The court was hearing a appeal filed by the Executive Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, and others challenging the trial court decree in favour of Mulraj Ice Factory, proprietor Hariharprasad Zaverilal, which had cancelled electricity theft bills and granted refund with interest.

The dispute arose after the electricity authority issued an initial bill of ₹2.17 lakh in March 1995 and later a revised supplementary bill of ₹10.07 lakh in May 1995 alleging theft of electricity following laboratory testing of the meter. The factory challenged the bills and sought injunction against disconnection.

Appearing for the appellants, advocate Lilu K. Bhaya contended that the laboratory testing revealed a green foreign substance inside the meter and possibility of inserting a plastic strip, which indicated dishonest abstraction of electricity amounting to theft under Section 33B of the Indian Electricity Act.

Opposing the appeal, advocate P. M. Lakhani, appearing for the respondents, argued that the checking squad had not found any tampering during inspection and that the laboratory report was based on assumptions. He submitted that the electricity company had failed to prove theft and had issued supplementary bills without justification.

In the testing report, it was mentioned that some green colour foreign material was found between the meter gap and the glass and from the other part of the meter, it was found that a plastic strip can be inserted inside the gap.

Agreeing with the respondents, the Court noted that the inspection team had not found any tampering at the consumer's premises.

The court said that laboratory report gave a finding that a plastic strip can be inserted in the gap between meter cover and glass, but apart from this nothing else has been recorded. It said that as per the other part of the meter was found okay and no other convincing findings are found in the laboratory testing report. The defendants have also not examined the person who had conducted testing of the meter and prepared the report, it added. 

Holding that the electricity company had failed to discharge its burden of proof, the Court upheld the trial court decree cancelling the supplementary bills and ordering refund.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Executive Engineer G.E.B. (now Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.) & Ors. v. Mulraj Ice Factory, Proprietor Hariharprasad Zaverilal & Ors.

Case No.: R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1673 of 1996

Appearance: Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for the Appellants; Mr. P. M. Lakhani and Mrs. R. P. Lakhani for the Respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order