BALKRISHNA PATIDAR vs JUNIOR ENGINEER, M.P.ELECTRICITY BOARD, MAXI

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'') against the order dated 17.9.1997 passed in Case No. 24/ 1994 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shajapur (for short the ''District Forum'').

IT is not in dispute that the appellant was provided 3 H.P. electric supply connection for drawing water from the well for the purposes of irrigation of 11 bighas of agricultural land of the appellant. The average bill for the consumption of the electricity was about Rs. 450/- per month. However, on 15.1.1990 the Executive Engineer, Vigilance Cell of the M.P. Electricity Board found on the spot that the electric supply was misused without the Board''s knowledge for the purpose of drawing water from the well being drained in the PVC pipe line laid to Shiv Khandsari Factory. The Executive Engineer also found a tanker so as to collect the water from the well in the hauze in the premises of the factory. A panchnama was prepared. The bill of the electricity was prepared at the commercial rate of Rs. 1671/-. The appellant under compulsion deposited the amount otherwise his connection would have been disconnected. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act to challenge the demand. The allegations of the complaint were denied. The District Forum after perusal of the evidence adduced and the affidavit of the Executive Engineer found the allegations of the complaint false and observed that the complainant was using the electric supply for the purpose different than the specific purpose under a tariff it was provided, hence, dismissed the complaint.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that a poor agriculturist cannot supply water from a small well to Sugar Factory which itself possessed sufficient means for collection and supply of water. Not only that, the Factory itself was supplying water to the Municipal Council of Shajapur. Therefore, the story of supplying water from the well through PVC line is false. The demand raised is to pressurise the consumer for the reason best known to the officers of the Board. Lastly, it was submitted that the demand could not have been more than six months previous to the date of detection of misuse of the electricity.

MR. S.N. Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the finding, however, he fairly conceded that the bill sent was for a period of one year previous to the date when its misuse was detected, while under Clause (d) of Condition No. 31 of the General Conditions for supply of Electricity Energy by the M.P. Electricity Board framed by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the demand ought to have been raised for a period of six months prior to the date of detection of misuse. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence recorded the finding of misuse of the electricity, which is neither perverse nor is manifestly illegal hence does not call for any interference. However the demand for a period of one year of the consumption of electricity on the commercial rate the appropriate higher tariff was illegal and contrary to Clause (d) of Condition No. 31, which reads thus : "31. Prejudicial use of supply : (a) .................... (b) ................... (c) ................... (d) If energy supplied for a specific purpose under a particular tariff is used without the Board''s knowledge and/ or consent for a different purpose not contemplated in the contract for supply and for which higher tariff is applicable then the electricity consumption bills already rendered for the service shall be revised charging the appropriate higher tariff for the previous six months from the date of detection of misuse unless in the opinion of the Engineer there are convincing reasons for adopting a different period. The imposition of this higher rate will not relieve the consumer from any proceedings and penalities which may be imposed under law. (e) .................... (f) ...................

FROM a bare reading of Clause (d) it is clear that the bill so raised ought to have been for the period of six months previous to date of detection of misuse as there was no convincing reason for adopting a different period. In the circumstances, the excess amount charged by the Board for more than six months previous to from the date of detection of misuse is illegal. Therefore, we direct the Board to refund the amount of Rs. 2601/- to the appellant within a period of 30 days from today. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum shall stand modified as indicated hereinabove. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed in part.