Baboolal vs N.S.YADAV

THIS is an appeal by the complainant whose complaint has been dismissed as not maintainable by the District Forum, Betul. The complainant approached the District Forum with a complaint that he is a Consumer of electricity who has been sent a bill for Rs. 9,787.90 paise on the ground that on checking the meter on 9.1.90 it was found to be running slow and on that basis for the period from April 1989 to February 1990, the audit has found the aforesaid sum to be recoverable. The District Forum has taken the view that such a complaint did not lie in view of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 by virtue of which a complaint relating to defective meter has to be referred to an Electrical Inspector. The view taken by the District Forum is clearly wrong. In Harish Kumar v. Chief Engineer, MPEB and Others I (1993) CPJ 299 this Commission has held relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P.E.B. and Others v. Smt. Basantibai, AIR 1988 SC 71 and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hamidullah Khan v. The Chairman, MPEB and Others (1982 MPLJ 623) that M.P. Electricity Board has no right directly to demand any amount on the basis that the meter was defective or was running slow without getting the dispute decided by the Electrical Inspector. In Hamidulla Khan''s case (supra) a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has been clearly laid down that if the consumer had paid the bills in accordance with the meter reading and the Electricity Board issues revised bills on the plea that the meter was not correct which fact is disputed by the consumer, it would be for the Board to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector for getting a decision on the question whether meter was correct and also getting the quantity of energy consumed during the period the meter is found to be not correct estimated. Where the Board dispute the correctness of the meter, decides the matter unilaterally without referring the dispute to the Electrical Inspector and itself makes the estimate of electricity consumed during that period without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector and makes revised bills on that basis, the bills would be invalid in law and non-payment of such bills cannot authorise the Board to discontinue the electricity under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act.

IN the face of the law clearly laid down by the High Court and the Supreme Court, the District Forum could not have thrown out the complaint as not maintainable. The appeal is allowed. It is declared that the M.P. Electricity Board is not entitled to recover any amount from the Appellant on the basis that the meter was defective and was not giving the correct reading unless the M.P. Electricity Board refers the matter to the Electrical INspector and gets it decided through him. Demand and insistence on compliance with it on the part of the M.P. Electricity Board especially in the face of the decisions by the High Court and the Supreme Court against it is no doubt a deficiency in service, for which compensation could have been awarded by the District Forum. We feel a sum of Rs. 1,000/- will be adequate compensation for the lapse on the part of the M.P. Electricity Board. Appeal allowed with costs.