State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs Kusum Abhimanyu Patil on 31 August, 2009
1 F.A. No..: 963-05
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing : 26.05.2005
Date of Order: 31.08.2009
FIRST APPEAL NO. 963 OF 2005
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 16 OF 2005
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALGAON.
Maharashtra State Electricity Board
(Through its Executive Engineer)
Urban & Rural Division, Jalgoan,
Near Mutton Market, Jalgaon,
Tal. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... Appellant
-VERSUS-
Smt. Kusum Abhimanyu Patil
R/o. 18, Bhoite Nagar, Jalgaon,
Tal. Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondent
Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Judicial Member.
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present: Adv. Shri. S.N. Tandale, for appellant.
Adv. Shri. P. N. Kutti, for respondent.
:: ORAL ORDER ::
Per Mrs. Uma S. Bora, Hon`ble Member
1. Executive Engineer MSEB Jalgaon has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by District Forum, Jalgaon dated 26.04.2005 in complaint case no. 16/2005.
2. The facts essential for disposal of this appeal are as under:-
Complainant Smt. Kusum Abhimanyu Patil is resident of Jalgoan. The electric connection was in operation since 1979 under consumer 2 F.A. No..: 963-05 no.110012151390 and 110012151381. Since the installation of meter complainant is regular payee of the bills. She used to receive bio- monthly bill for 150 to 250 units. Suddenly on 07.02.2009 she received current bill of Rs.1193.72 for 316 units. In the said bill arrears of Rs.42,128.14 were shown, immediately she approached to MSEB and made application on 16.09.2002 and requested to correct the bill but, application was not responded. On 12.11.2002 she received bill for 47 units amounting to Rs.2252.52. In the said bill also arrears of Rs.46,960.50 were shown. Complainant on 27.11.2002 made application to the MSEB for correction of the bill. The said application was also not responded. On 24.12.2002 she received notice informing her to pay Rs.49, 214.85 as amount of arrears within 15 days, else the supply will be disconnected and on 02.01.2003, within the 9 days supply was disconnected. She approached to MSEB and requested to accept the some amount and restore the supply. But her grievance was not redressed therefore; she approached the District Forum for cancelling the disputed bills.
3. Opponent appeared before the Dist. Forum and filed their say. It is mentioned that meter reading of the complainants meter for the period 01.05.2002 to 30.06.2002 was 11684 and current reading was 20398.
When the meter of complainant was changed in the month of Sept.2002 the meter reading was 12022, which means that the complainant on breaking the seal of the meter reversed the meter therefore reading was shown less than actual consumption. The employee of MSEB who used to record the reading regularly found this fact. For 01.03.2002 to 30.04.2002 previous reading was 11790 and current reading was 11684 which shows that 106 units were reverted. The employee of MSEB while taking meter reading found that the meter was reversed and therefore, 3 F.A. No..: 963-05 there was less consumption shown than the actual consumption. Therefore, bills issued are right and proper.
4. After hearing both the parties Dist. Forum cancelled the bills dated 07.09.2002 and 12.11.2002. District Forum also cancelled the notice dated 24.01.2002. District Forum further directed the appellant to issue fresh bills for the period 30.06.2002 within one month.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order opponent came in appeal.
6. Notices of final hearing were issued to both the parties. Adv. Shri. S.N. Tandale, appeared for the appellant and Adv. Shri. P. N. Kutti appeared for respondent. The learned counsel Shri. Tandale submitted that when the employee of MSEB went for recording the meter reading for the period 01.03.2002 to 30.04.2002 he found that previous reading was 11790 and current reading was 11684 which clearly shows that 106 units were reversed. Thereafter, for the period from 01.05.2002 to 30.06.2002 previous reading was 11684 and current reading was 20396. It shows that the meter was faulty. The meter of complainant was changed in Sept.2002. At the time of changing meter reading was 12022, which means that the complainant after braking the seal reversed the meter reading and therefore her request of correction of bills was not considered. It is the complainant who has to approach electrical inspector for the meter testing. Electrical inspector is competent authority whose decision is final. But complainant deliberately avoided to approach the electrical inspector. The bills issued were proper and after recording the meter reading by employee of the MESB. The consumption of electricity by complainant is more. Therefore, the bills were correctly issued. He contended that appeal is be allowed and complaint is to be dismissed.
4 F.A. No..: 963-057. Adv. Shri. Prasanna Kutti submitted that checking of meter is responsibility of the MSEB. The bills were issued regularly to the complainant and complainant paid all the bills regularly. No sooner the employee of MSEB found that meter is faulty the matter should have been referred to the electrical inspector. But, in the instant case MSEB did not refer the matter to electrical inspector, and issued the bills of huge amount. Complainant is a domestic consumer of the electricity. Therefore, there is no possibility of more consumption. Complainant many times approached to MSEB and requested them to correct the bills but MSEB without taking cognizance of her complaint issued one after another bill for huge amount. If the meter was found faulty it is the duty of MSEB to refer the matter to the electrical inspector for checking the meter and after receiving the report from electrical inspector MSEB should have issued the bill but appellant fell to perform its duty properly, and committed deficiency in service by issuing the bills of huge amount to the domestic consumer. In this respect he relied on judgment of High Court and State Commission, New Delhi.
i) In Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay, reported in 1985 Maharashtra Law Journal - 535. The High Court Bench comprising of Shri. K. Madhav Reddy CJ and B.C. Gadgil, held that dispute regarding where meter is correct or not referred to electrical inspector u/s. 26 (6) - licensee is not entitled to claim anything for period more than six months bills can be revised only for period of six months to the maximum licensee has no authority to disconnect supply on the ground that meter recorded wrong entries for greater period and the amount claimed for that period was not been paid.5 F.A. No..: 963-05
ii) Delhi State Commission in Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Suresh Bhan, reported in I- 2002 CPJ - 523 - held that delay in sending bill due to switching over of billing system from manual to computer not acceptable.
Opposite party directed to revise the bill on the basis of average reading or minimum guarantee amount whichever is more.
In our view, these authorities are squarely applicable to the instant case.
8. We heard the arguments of both the counsels and perused the records it reveals from record that the complainant was regular payee of electricity bills. On 07.09.2002 she received bill of arrears of Rs.42,128/- she immediately approached to MSEB on 16.09.2002 and requested to correct the bill. Again on 12.11.2002 she received bill of Rs.4960.50. Again she approached to MSEB for correction of bill but her application was not responded. On 24.12.2002 notice of disconnection was issued. In our view, the recording of meter reading is the responsibility of the employee of MSEB. As and when he found that, the meter reading was not correct or wrong. It is the duty of employee of MSEB to refer the matter to the higher officer and the office of the MSEB should have referred the matter to the electrical inspector. In the instant case, dispute relates to whether the electrical meter is correct one or faulty not recording the actual electrical energy consumes by the complainant. Appellant submitted that it is the duty of complainant to refer the matter to electrical inspector we do not agree with the same. This dispute squarely falls within the provision of Electricity Act and as such it is the electrical inspector who alone is empowered to decide the dispute. If the electrical inspector comes to the conclusion that, the meter is faulty and due to some defects it is not registering the actual consumption of the electrical energy then the inspector will estimate the energy consumed and then fix the amount to be paid in respect of said consumption for six 6 F.A. No..: 963-05 months. The Electricity Board is not competent to pending the determination to determine of this dispute by the electrical inspector, to issue notice threatening, disconnection of supply of energy due to non payment of supplementary bill prepared and sent by him. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that, District Forum rightly considered the facts and rightly dismissed the complaint. We are in conformity with the order of District Forum. Hence, :: O R D E R ::
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. Appellant to pay Rs.1000/- towards the cost in appeal.
3. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties.
(Mrs. Uma S. Bora) (S. G. Deshmukh)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar