ANDUL FABRICATORS LTD vs West Bengal State Electricity Board

-IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 7. 9. 2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal, Kolkata partly allowing appeal against the order dated 2. 4. 2003 of a District Forum. Operative portion of the order of State Commission reads thus : "the dispute between the two parties is pertaining to disputed bills and defective meter for a long period i. e. , August 1992 to September 1997. To meet the ends of justice the appellant shall pay 50% of the disputed amount to the respondent-WBSEB. The respondent shall accordingly raise a provisional bill within 15 days of getting a copy of this order and within 15 days of the payment of 50% of the disputed amount the respondent shall restore the electric connection of the appellant (if not already done) replacing the defective meter by a defect free and new one in the circuit. The appellant shall pay the reconnection charge as per the I. E. Act to the respondent before restoration. After payment of the 50% of the disputed amount the entire disputed bills for the abovementioned months and the defective meter in question shall be referred to the CEI, W. B. for adjudication. The CEI would do well to dispose the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of reference. Be it mentioned that the decision of the CEI regarding the disputed bills will be binding on both the parties. "

CONTENTION advanced by Mr. P. K. Aggarwal for petitioner/complainant whom we have heard on admission, is that in view of the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. H. D. Suri, 53 (1994) Delhi Law Times 1 (DB), the respondent/opposite party Electricity Board is entitled to charge dues only for six months and not for the entire period from August 1992 to September 1997 for which the provisional bill is to be raised. Further, the State Commission ought not to have asked the petitioner to pay 50% of provisional bill as a condition to restore electric connection by the respondent-Board. Having considered H. D. Suri''s case (supra), we are of the view that it is not of assistance to the petitioner at this juncture as Chief Electrical Engineer is yet to report if the meter installed in the premises of petitioner was in fact defective. In our view, part of the order of State Commission ordering restoration of electric connection subject to deposit by the petitioner of 50% amount of the provisional bill is just and proper. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.