Delhi High Court
Ms. Archana Mathur vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 2 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: 123(2005)DLT500
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog
JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. On 24.2.2005 inspection was carried out at the premises of the petitioner bearing Flat No. 12-C, Pocket A-12, MIG Flats, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. As per the report of inspection, as against the sanctioned load of 3.32 KW, connected load of 12.641 KW was found. It was further found that the meter was tampered with. On 24.2.2005 itself, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner requiring her to show cause as to why bill as per tariff applicable pertaining to DAE be not raised. Petitioner responded to the show cause notice on 3.3.2005. She was heard. defense was rejected. Pursuant thereto, a bill was raised upon the petitioner on 28.3.2005.
2. Order dated 7.3.2005, which has been impugned by the petitioner, reads as under :
"During inspection conducted on 24.2.2005 connected load of 12.641 KW, against the sanctioned load of 3.32 KW, under domestic category, was detected. Poly-carbonate single phase meter body found re-fixed with adhesive and scratches were also found at the joint.
Show cause notice for suspected dishonest abstraction of energy and request to attend personal hearing on 3.3.2005 was issued vide letter dated 24.2.2005. Mrs. Archana Mathur, attended personal hearing on 3.3.2005 and submitted that she is occupying DDA flat for the last 15 years. In part of the flat, there was tenant up to August,2004. OTG was defective for the last one year.
The case has been examined and study of the consumption pattern for the period 20.9.2004 to 24.2.2005 shows an average recorded consumption of 88.109 units per month, which has been found 12.35% of the assessed consumption. Even after excluding the load of OTG, the recorded consumption works out to 12.94% of the assessed consumption. Meter has been re-fixed. DAE is established. After excluding the cooling load and tolerance of 5% consumer is required to be billed for connected load of 9.643 KW, under domestic category as per Tariff Schedule, 2004-05 and DERC Regulations.
The consumer is required to get connected load of 12.641 KW sanctioned.
The meter is required to be retained at site, as evidence and supply restored through a new meter by Busine Manager of the District."
3. Needless to state if the order stands, bill would also stand against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that son of the petitioner is working abroad in the United Kingdom. She lives in the house with a mentally handicapped daughter and for this reason, there is hardly any consumption of electricity in the house. Counsel urged that there was no reason why petitioner would tamper with the meter.
5. Why should somebody tamper with the meter is known to the person who tampers with the meter, if tampering otherwise is proved.
6. In the writ petition, petitioner has averred that till August,2004, she was sharing the flat with a tenant. It is obvious that the petitioner has converted the flat into two residential units, both units being serviced through single meter as the flat is conceptually a single entity.
7. Consumption pattern for the period 20.9.2004 to 24.2.2005 shows that on an average per month, meter has recorded consumption of 88.109 units.
8. Inspection report shows a geyser of 2 KW rating, room heaters 2 in number of 2000 watt rating, 1 air conditioner of 2.25 KW rating, refrigerator, motor pump for boosting water apart from electrical lamps, bulbs, tubes and other electrical gadgets in the house. Gadgets show the standard of living maintained by the petitioner.
9. Consumption pattern for the period 20.9.2004 to 24.2.2005 records a meagre 88 units per month consumption of electricity. Petitioner had a geyser in toilet. Even if the same was being switched on for half an hour each day, consumption on account of use of geyser itself would be about 125 units each month. Being autumn and winter months, I ignore the air conditioner being used. 2 heaters were found in the flat. Assuming one was used in the months of December and January for approx 3 hours each day, consumption by the heater during those months would be another 75 units.
10. The consumption pattern recorded by the meter viz-a-viz the equipments found in the house of the petitioner speaks for itself.
11. I see no reason as to why officers of the respondent would prepare a false report.
12. Inspection report records that polycarbonate meter body was found re-fixed at the time of inspection and had scratch marks at the joint parts of the meter body. It is recorded in the inspection report that the petitioner refused to receive the copy of the inspection report.
13. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that since petitioner and her handicapped daughter were the only residents in the flat, consumption of electricity was meagre is not found acceptable by me for the reasons stated in paras 9 to 11 above.
14. No infirmity in the inspection report has been pointed out. There is no denial in the writ petition that the gadgets recorded in the inspection report were not there in the flat of the petitioner.
15. I find no merits in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioner is granted 2 weeks time to pay the balance amount under the bill in question after adjusting Rs. 15,000/- directed to be paid when interim relief was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 4.4.2005, if petitioner has complied with the interim order.
16. No costs.