ASSISTANT DIVL. ENGINEER, ELECTRICIAL OPERATION vs G.VENKATESWARLU

THESE appeals are preferred by the opposite parties i.e. Officers of the Electricity Board against the common orders of the District Forum, Khammam in C.D. Nos. mentioned in the cause title in three batches, whereby it quashed the demand notices issued for various sums mentioned in the said notices.

THE complainants in all the CDs. are having electric service connections to their respective rice and floor mills and other mills under Category III and have been paying the bills regularly from the date of connection of power supply according to the meter readings. Periodically the officers of the opposite parties inspected the meters and noted the units of the power consumption and accordingly issued the bills which the complainants paid. While so, notices were issued to the complainants stating that the meters were not working in one or two phases or the meter is sluggish or stopping intermittently and depending on whether the meter was working in one or two phases and whether it was stopping intermittently or running sluggishly, notices were issued estimating the probable consumption of power and the amounts payable thereon. In CD 537/91 against which FA 242/95 was filed, in the notices issued it was not only stated that the meter was functioning in one phase out of three phases, but also the multiplying factor was wrongly applied as 5 instead of 10. All the above complaints were filed questioning the aforesaid demand notices on the ground that the complainants did not tamper with the meter and the non-working of the meter in one phase or two phases or the meter being sluggish or stopping intermittently is a defect in the meter and in which event the dispute has to be referred to the Electrical Inspector for determination under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1910 and the opposite parties cannot issue demand notices. It was also stated that the wrong multiplying factor also is due to non-provision of a loop in the meter and that it amounts to defect in the meters. Hence the complainants submitted that the impugned demand notices have to be to quashed.

The opposite parties opposed the claim mainly on the ground that the dispute as to whether the meter is working in one phase or two phases or it is sluggish and stopping intermitently, need not be referred to the Electrical Inspector and hence the opposite parties rightly issued notices demanding the payment of the amount as estimated in the impugned notices. It is also submitted that since the loop was not provided in the meter, the opposite party rightly issued the demand notices on the basis of applying the multiplying factor 10 in case of CD 537/ 91.

BOTH sides adduced oral and documentary evidence before the District Forum. The District Forum found after referring to number of decisions that the non-functioning of the meter in one or two phases out of three phases and stopping of the meter intermittently and also being sluggish, is a defect in the meter and that the said dispute arose due to meter not working correctly, it can only be decided by the Electrical Inspector and that therefore it quashed the impugned demand notices.

IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the finding of the District Forum that there is a defect in the meter and the matter ought to have been referred to for a decision of the Electrical Inspector is not correct. We are not inclined to agree with this contention. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in M.P.E.B. and Others v. Smt. Basantibai, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 73 that: "In the instant case the dispute relates to whether the electricity meter is correct one or it is faulty not recording the actual electrical energy consumed in running the oil mill of the consumer. So this dispute squarely falls within the provisions of the said Act and as such it is the Electrical Inspector who alone is empowered to decide the dispute. If the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter is faulty and due to some defect it has not registered the actual consumption of electrical energy, then the Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respect of such energy consumed within a period not exceeding six months. The Electricity Board is not competent pending the determination of this dispute by the Electrical Inspector to issue the notice threatening disconnection of supply of electricity for nonpayment of supplementary bill prepared and sent by it. The Board is also not competent to prepare, and send a supplementary bill in respect of energy consumed by the consumer from the one phase which stopped functioning and did not record any consumption of energy."

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in M.P. Electricity Board v. Baboo Lal, II (1995) CPJ 132 (NC), held that "where the Audit party of the Electricity Board which conducted a surprise inspection found that the meter in the complainant''s factory had been tampered with by reversing it on one side with the result that the meter was recording energy in forward direction on two phases and in the reverse direction on one phase thereby bringing about the overall consequence that the meter was recording only 1 /3rd of the total consumption and on that basis the opposite party raised the impugned bill. This was not a case of inherent defect in the meter so as to require the meter being referred to the Electrical Inspector before serving a bill".

HAVING regard to the principles laid down in the aforesaid two decisions and as it was mentioned in the notices that the meters were functioning in one phase in some cases and two phases in some other cases and stopping intermittently in some cases and the meter was sluggish in some other cases, the District Forum rightly held that as the dispute arises due to incorrectness of the meters, it has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector.

IN CD 537/91 out of which Appeal FA 242/95 arises the opposite parties pleaded that by mistake they applied the multiplying factor 5 instead of 10. We have held in the batch of cases in Appeals No. 321 /95 to 329/95 decided on this day that as wrong application of a multiplying factor is a consequence of non-provision of a loop in the meter, it will amount to defect in the meter. In CDs. 195/93 and 245/93 apart from alleging that the meter is not working in one phase or two phases, there is an allegation that the complainants in those cases i.e. FA Nos. 803/ 95 and 809/95 had more connected load than that of the contracted load and in the notices it was separately mentioned that due to use of such excess load in CD 195/93 (FA 803/95) the complainants shall be liable to pay Rs. 2,626/- and in CD 245/93 (FA 809/95) Rs. 37,560/-. The District Forum held that the complainants are liable to pay the said amounts and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint with regard to that portion of the claim and it accordingly dismissed the complaints. It is therefore not necessary to consider the same in these appeals.

In the result, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in all these appeals. Appeals dismissed.