State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Executive Engineer vs Deceased Shri Jaykishor Mohanlal Karva on 4 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, CIRCUIT BENCH, NAGPUR 5th floor, Administrative Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01 Appeal No. A/98/1315 (Arising out of Order dtd.23.04.1998 in Complaint No.CC/95/176 of District Forum, Amravati) Executive Engineer M.S.E.D.C.L., Urban Division Amravati Versus Deceased Shri Jaykishor Mohanlal Karva Through his LR Shri Girishkumar Jaykishor Karva R/o In front of Jawahar Gate Amravati, Dist & Tq. Amravati BEFORE: Honble Mr S. M. Shembole, Presiding Member Hon'ble Smt.Jayshree Yengal, Member Hon'ble Mr N. Arumugam, Member PRESENT: Adv. Mr S D Babrekar ..for the Appellant Adv. Mr S Saoji .....for the Respondent ORDER
(Passed on 04.10.2012) Per Mr S M Shembole, Honble Presiding Member This appeal is directed against the judgement & order dtd. 23.04.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Amravati in Consumer Complaint No.CC/95/176, allowing the complaint, setting aside electricity bill of Rs.34,889/- and directing the appellant MSEDCL to issue revised bill for 2308 units. The appellant / o.p. is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost of proceeding to the respondent / complainant and further directed to restore the electricity supply, etc. (For the sake of brevity the appellant hereinafter are referred as the o.p. and the respondent as the complainant) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
1. Complainant Jaykishor Karwa is a consumer of o.p.
He is having electricity connection for domestic purpose. He used to pay electricity bills regularly. Electric meter was installed in his house.
However, it was defective. Therefore, in the month of May, on the basis of complaint of the complainant the meter was changed. But the same meter was also not functioning properly. Therefore, again on 14.09.1994 the meter was replaced and new meter bearing No.2541530 was installed.
Thereafter, on 10.08.1994 the complainant paid electric bill of Rs.277/- for the period from 28.04.1994 to 16.07.1994. Thus, according to the complainant he has paid the entire dues as per the bill issued by the o.p. However, on 16.12.1994 the o.p. issued bill of Rs.34,889/- sowing the current consumption of 2308 units and 11200 units for prevision period for 34 months.
Thereafter immediately, the complainant made complaint in writing with the o.p. and requested for correction in the bill & issuing the bill for current consumption only. But the o.p.
did not consider his request and on 05.05.1995 disconnected the electric supply. Therefore, the complainant made Consumer Complaint before District Consumer Forum, Amravati and prayed to quash the bill of Rs.34,889/- and direct the o.p. to issue revised bill for current consumption. He also prayed for direction to restore electric supply, etc.
2. The o.p. resisted the complaint by its Written Version on the following amongst the grounds:-
It is not disputed that the complainant is a consumer. It is also not disputed that the electric meter, which was installed at the house of complainant was twice replaced as both the meters were not functioning properly. It is also not disputed that after installation of the meter on 14.09.1994 electric bill for the period from 28.04.1994 to 16.07.1994 was issued and complainant paid the amount of Rs.277/-. It is also not disputed that on 16.12.1994 the o.p. issued bill of Rs.34,889/- for 2308 units and 11200 units for earlier period for 34 months. However, it is contended that the electric connection was given to the complainant for commercial purpose. It is contended that the o.p. had legally issued the bill of Rs.34,889/- for current consumption and earlier consumption on the basis of average consumption as the meter was stopped and was not functioning properly till the installation of new meter on 14.09.1994. It is submitted that as the complainant failed to pay the bill amount of Rs.34,889/- the o.p. legally disconnected the electric supply. He has denied all other adverse averments and submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
3. On hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record the Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of o.p. as the o.p. failed to maintain the electric meter properly and also failed to maintain the record pertains to the electric connection provided to the complainant. It is further held that the o.p. illegally issued disputed bill showing electric consumption for earlier 34 months on the basis of average consumption for the period subsequent to 14.09.1994. It is also held that the complainant is liable to pay electricity bill for 2308 units only.
4. In keeping with this finding the forum allowed the complaint as noted above.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgement & order the o.p. has preferred this appeal.
6. Pending the appeal complainant Jaykishor Karwa expired and his son as a legal heir Mr Girish is brought on record.
7. We heard counsel for both the sides at length, perused the Written Notes of Argument submitted by them. We also perused copy of impugned judgement & order and the copies of complaint and Written Version.
8. Almost all the facts except the bill of Rs.34,889/- are not disputed. It is submitted by Mr S D Babrekar for the appellant that as prior to 14.09.1994 the meter was stopped the o.p. has legally issued the bill for earlier 34 months on the basis of average consumption, which was recorded after installation of new meter on 14.09.1994. According to Adv. Mr Babrekar this is not the case falling under Section 26(6) of Electricity Act, so as to make the reference to electrical inspector to verify whether the meter was proper or not.
9. Further he has submitted that it is also not the contention of the o.p. that the meter was tampered, etc. But the Forum without appreciating the facts of the case properly, wrongly held that the complainant is not liable to pay the bill for earlier period, though admittedly, the meter was stopped and was not functioning.
10. It is also submitted by Adv. Mr Babrekar that though the electric connection was given for commercial purposes, it is falsely alleged by the complainant that the electricity supply was provided to him for domestic purposes only.
11. But we find no force in the submission of Adv. Mr Babrekar. Firstly, because though it is the contention of the o.p. that the electric connection provided to the complainant for commercial purposes, neither any record to that effect is produced nor any commercial business, if any, run by the complainant, is disclosed. If electric supply was given to the complainant for commercial purpose, the o.p. should have maintained the record to that effect. Even if the complainant would have suppressed the facts of his business, if any, it would have noticed by the employees of o.p. But no such evidence is brought on record by the o.p. Therefore, the bare contention of the o.p. that electric connection was given to the complainant for commercial purpose cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the Forum has also rightly held.
12. On the point of validity of disputed bill of Rs.34,899/- Adv. Mr Babrekar for the appellant tried to support his contention by relying on the decision of Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. Ms Sapyah Trust & and Sarkar Trust & Ors. 2002(2) Mh.LJ. 558, in which it is held that where the meter had stopped functioning it was not a case of meter being correct or not. Such a matter is not covered under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act and in such case supplementary bill on average basis can be issued, etc.
13. He has also relied on the decision of Honble National Commission in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. M/s Swastik Industries 1997 NCJ 25, in which, it is observed that when the meter was found faulty, assessment of electric consumption can be made on average basis. It is further observed that inefficiency of the functionaries of the Appellants, deplorable though it is, cannot and should not be made a ground to cause a loss to a public utility concern.
14. As against this submission of Adv. Mr Babrekar Adv. Mr S Saoji for the complainant has submitted that when undisputedly the complainant has paid and cleared the dues till 16.07.1994 as per the electric bills issued by the o.p., it cannot claim the electricity charges for earlier period, that too on the basis of average consumption for subsequent period. He has also submitted that the complainant himself informed the o.p. by making complaint in writing about the non-functioning of the electric meter. It is further submitted that without any record about consumption of electricity for earlier period, the o.p. cannot claim the electricity charges, etc. Further he has submitted that as per the provision under Sec. 126 of Electricity Act, the o.p. cannot claim the electricity charges on the basis of average consumption for more than six months, etc.
15. He has also supported his contention by filing authorities:-
i. Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking Vs. Laffans ( India) (P) Ltd & Anr. 2005 STPL (LE) 34259 SC ii. Chhattarsingh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr.
-
I(2003) CPJ - 392 iii. Kamlesh Chadha Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. III(2007) CPJ 230 iv.
Neelkamal Industries Vs. MP Electricity Board - 2002 NCJ 332 (NC) v.
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd Vs. Aggarwal Ice Factory - III(2007) CPJ 287 (NC)
16. In the case of Bombay Electric Supply Vs. Laffans ( India) (P) Ltd & Anr. (supra) it is held by Honble Apex Court that additional demand made on the basis of the meter was not correct is not sustainable without making reference to electric inspection under section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act. In the case of Chhatarsing (supra) it is held by National Commission that if the meter is defective average bill more than six months cannot be charged as provided under Section 26(6) of Electricity Act.
Since, undisputedly, the meter was not functioning, in our view, the o.p. cannot claim the electricity charges for more than six months period as observed by the Supreme Court.
17. Further in the case of Kamlesh (supra) it is observed by Delhi State Consumer Commission that in action on the part of of o.p. in not sending the bill for 7 years, it cannot recover as there was deficiency in service on the part of o.p.. Though the facts of the case are not application to the present case, since undisputedly, the o.p. did not issue the bill prior to 14.04.1994 and no action was taken to inspect and replace the meter, it cannot claim the electricity charges on the basis of average consumption. In the case of Neelkamal Industries (supra) National Commission observed that raising supplementary bill on the ground of defective electric meter without referring the meter to electrical inspector u/s 26(6) of Electricity Act is not legal. As state earlier though the present case does not fall u/s 26(6) of Electricity Act since there was deficiency in service on the part of o.p. by not issuing bills prior to 14.09.1994, it cannot claim the electricity charges on the average basis as claimed.
18. For the foregoing reasons and the above all decisions of Supreme Court as well as National Commission though this case does not fall u/s 26(6) of Electricity Act, since there was deficiency on the part of o.p. by not replacing the electric meter in time and not issuing the bill, the disputed bill issued on average basis for subsequent period cannot be said to be legal.
19. Therefore, the argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for the o.p. cannot be sustained and hence, the authorities on which o.p. relied on, also cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, we gave our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for both the sides and we find that the Forum has rightly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and o.p. cannot claim electricity charges for the period prior to 14.09.1994 and therefore, rightly allowed the complaint. Therefore, we find no any glaring error or infirmity in the impugned judgement & order.
Hence, no interference is warranted.
20. In the result, the appeal is being devoid of any merit liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed.
ii. No order as to cost.
iii. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
[ S. M. SHEMBOLE ] PRESIDING MEMBER [ SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER sj