Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the OPs/respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'OPs') that he is a domestic subscriber of the OPs having account no.NA-1130 with a meter no.1700839. During the course of checking, the Meter Reader found that there is some irregularity in the meter. Consequently, the complainant moved an application to the OPs on 18.05.2007 to check the meter. The OPs removed the meter and installed a new meter bearing no.3370722. On 28.02.2008 the complainant received a letter from OP no.1 that the meter was checked and found OK and the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,806/-. The complainant again went in the office of the OPs with a request to reconsider the meter as the complainant was not called at the time of checking of the meter but the OPs did not listen to him and threatened to dis-connect the supply. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant with the direction to the OPs to withdraw this notice and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

3. The complaint was contested by the OPs, who filed written statement stating that the Meter Reader pointed out any irregularity in the meter during the checking. However, the complainant moved an application for getting the meter checked. The meter was checked removed for getting the same checked in the ME, Lab. It was checked in the ME, Lab and was found to be correct. Then the audit party detected that the complainant has not been charged after the receipt of the report from the ME, lab and was found liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,806/- but he has not paid the same. There is no merit in the complaint and the same be dismissed.

10. With regard to account number no doubt in the complaint the account number NA-06/1138 referred as NA-1130 but in the grounds of the appeal it has been stated that there is a typographical mistake and infact his account number NA-06/1138 is also collaborated from the electricity bill issued by the OPs placed on record. The learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint without referring the documents that the account number is not correct. In case the account number was not correct the meter number was given in the documents so produced by the OPs should have been checked with the meter number. But no such efforts was made by the learned District Forum to connect those documents with the meter number in the complaint, meter number has been mentioned as 1700839, as per the version of the OPs the meter was removed and it was sent to ME, Lab. However, on the record the OPs have filed the affidavit of Er. Gurkirat Singh Ex.R-1 which cannot be termed as affidavit because he has referred that he is conversant with the facts as detailed in the reply and the same be considered as part of reply. It is not an affidavit in the eyes of law as the facts which he wanted to refer should have been part of the affidavit only then it could be said that these are the other facts taken on solemn affirmation. Ex.R-2 is meter challenge report vide which MCO was affected and Ex.R-3 is recasting the account of the complainant, Ex.R-4 is duplicate report from ME, Lab. Although no detail has been given in this report but for the sake of arguments it is taken as the report of the ME Lab, it refers to meter no.2904444, same has been referred in the order Ex.R-3 whereas, the meter number of the complainant as referred in the complaint is 1700839. Therefore, this report does not pertain to the meter of the complainant. Moreover, as contended by the counsel for the appellant in the grounds of appeal, no notice was served upon him at the time of checking of his meter. Even otherwise, if there would have been any notice in case the report does not pertain to the meter of the complainant then that notice cannot be read against the complainant. Once the accuracy of the meter has been challenged by the complainant and it was sent to ME, Lab but the OP have not been able to bring on the record any report of the ME, Lab showing the correctness of the meter of the complainant then they cannot charge to say that the meter of the complainant is accurate one.

11. Now the meter cannot be repacked in the same condition in which it was removed, therefore, it cannot be rechecked in the ME, Lab therefore, during the period the bill has not been paid by the complainant, the same can be charged on average basis as per the regulations of the OPs and that they have no right to charge the bill considering the meter of the complainant as accurate one.

12. Sequel to the above discussions, we accept the appeal. The order so passed by the learned District Forum is set-aside. The complaint of the complainant is allowed. The notice issued by the OPs to charge a sum of Rs.1,18,806/- on the plea that the meter of the complainant was accurate is hereby quashed. However, the OPs will be at liberty to get the charges of the unpaid period on average basis as per their Rules and Regulations. Since there is deficiency on the part of the OPs because they did not follows the proper procedure for checking of the meter and the report brought on the record does not pertain to the complainant and bill was issued on wrong facts which necessitated the filing of the complaint by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant will further be entitled to Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.