Bhola Pandey vs BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

BOTH the appeals have been heard together as they arise out of the common order. This order shall govern both the appeals.

APPEAL No. 103/203 has been preferred by O.P.-appellant (Bihar State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as Board) against the order dated 10.2.2003 passed by District Forum, Purnea in Complaint Case No. 64/2002 whereby and whereunder the Forum directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,287/- to the respondent-complainant as compensation and litigation cost and further directed to adjust this amount in the electric bill of the month of September, 2002. The Forum also directed that this amount shall be realised from the salary of the bill clerk. Appeal No. 202/2003 has been preferred by the complainant-appellant against the above impugned order with a prayer to set aside the impugned order (10.2.2003).

The brief fact of the case is that complainant Bhola Pandey is a consumer of the Board. He filed the case before the District Forum which relates to the two electric bills issued by the Board for the month of September, 2002 which according to him were wrong, illegal, mala fide and arbitrary. The complainant prayed to quash the bill and issue fresh bill as per meter reading. It is further case of the complainant that he had preferred Misc. Case No. 5/2002 before the District Forum, Purnea which was disposed of by order dated 2.8.2002 directing the Board to correct the bill in dispute of Rs. 29,879.88. The Board thereafter sent revised bill for that period for Rs. 22,153.88. The complainant made protest against the amount of this bill. Thereafter the complainant on 8.4.2002 made a prayer before the Board to allow him to deposit half of the amount under protest but it was denied by the Board by letter dated 5.2.2002. The contention of the complainant was that he has consumed only 2326 units as per meter reading but the bills have been sent arbitrarily of huge amount which was not according to the meter reading. The complainant also made prayer to the Board that excess amount paid by him under protest be adjusted towards the future bill but no reply was received from the Board. It is further case of the complainant that Board served a bill dated 23.10.2002 for the month of September, 2002 to the complainant showing only 28 units consumed by the complainant for Rs. 423.32. Another protest was lodged with the Board with regard to this bill. Thereafter the Board served another bill of Rs. 2,624.92 on 25.10.2002 for the said period. The complainant''s contention is that the Board was serving him different bills for the month of September, 2002 on his protest but it was never issued correct bills and this conduct of the Board caused serious mental, physical and economic harassment to the complainant. Thereafter he filed the case (64/2002) before the Forum which was finally decided by the impugned order. The contention of the complainant-appellant in Appeal No. 202/2003 is that the order of the District Forum is not based on facts available on record. The District Forum failed to appreciate the arbitrary and mala fide action of the Board in sending bills of different amount for the month of September, 2002 on the protest of the complainant. This in itself amounted to deficiency in the service of the Board and District Forum should have allowed heavy compensation in favour of the complainant. When the Board has mentioned that in the month of September, 2002 the complainant has consumed only 28 units then why he sent the revised bill for Rs. 2,624.92 which should have been not more than Rs. 70/- in any case. It is was further argued on behalf of the appellant that the District Forum ignored the arbitrary action of the Board and in its order directed that the excess amount paid by the complainant be adjusted towards the future bill and failed to award any compensation and litigation cost in favour of the appellant-complainant.

THE learned Lawyer in Appeal No. 103/2003 (Electricity Board) has submitted that order of the District Forum directing the Board to adjust the amount paid by the complainant-respondent in future bill and to deduct this amount from the salary of the bill clerk (appellant No. 1) is erroneous and fit to be set aside. THE District Forum failed to appreciate the provision of Clause 15.4(d) of the Electricity Act and also the Tariff Rules, 1992. In the impugned order it is mentioned that Board is competent to charge DPS on the accrued outstanding dues but exempted the D.P.S. in its order which is contradictory to the finding of the Forum and also against the tariff rule of the Board and the orders as decided in the several judgment of the State Commission, Hon''ble National Commission and the Hon''ble Court. THE District Forum has wrongly held that bill clerk was responsible for sending incorrect bill to the complainant. THEre was no error much the less mala fide intention on the part of the bill clerk in sending the bill. THE bill was sent after calculating and adding meter rent charge, DPS charge and tariff, etc. on the bills which were according to the rules and there was no error on the part of the clerk concerned. THErefore, this part of the order of the District Forum is fit to be set aside. The learned appellant''s Lawyer has filed Annexure-1 which is copy of the details of the revised bill of the consumer-complainant from 2/97 till the month of November, 2001 and submitted that this detailed chart of the bills of the complainant shows that there was outstanding dues against the complainant for Rs. 22,153.88. The appellant-Board also placed reliance on the order of the District Forum passed in Case No. 5/2002 which was decided on 2.8.2002 whereby and whereunder the Forum held that claim of the complainant for compensation against the Board is not maintainable. The District Forum further held that complainant is a consumer since 1992 and consuming electric energy regularly but not one rupee had been paid by him towards electric charges and on one ground or the other he has been making protest against every bill issued by the Board. The Forum has held if the complainant had grievance against any of the bil of the Board he should have lodged the grievance but should have made payment of the amount of the bill as per Clause 15.4 (D) of the Electricity Act under protest and after inquiry if protest found to be correct that amount is to be adjusted against the future bills. The complainant did not comply with this mandatory provision and did not pay any amount but went on consuming electric energy without paying any amount till date. The conduct of the complainant was to go on disputing each and every bill of the Board on flimsy grounds. The appellant''s Lawyer further placed reliance on Annexure IV which was issued for the month of September, 2002 for Rs. 2,624.92. This includes the DPS charge, tariff charge, meter rent, etc. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 10.2.2003 has found that this bill submitted by the Board to the complainant is in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act and Rule but in spite of that the Forum has held the bill clerk responsible for issuing wrong bills and ordered that this amount be adjusted from his salary which is not according to the fact available on record.

WE have considered the submissions of the appellant and respondent in both the appeals and perused the order of the District Forum passed in Case No. 5/2002 dated 2.8.2002 and the impugned order dated 10.2.2003 and the Annexures on record. From the facts on record it is clear that after the order passed in Case No. 5/2002 by the District Forum the Board has issued revised bill to the complainant which was paid by him on 3.9.2002. The Board subsequently sent another bill to the complainant which includes DPS charge, tariff, meter rent, etc. on the ground that in the revised bill which was issued as per direction of the Forum did not include these mandatory charge, therefore, in the fresh bill this charge has been included. In support of this Annexure IV has been relied upon as discussed above. The District Forum in the impugned order has held that DPS charge, tariff and meter rent, etc. are mandatory charges as per Tariff Rules and Electricity Act and every consumer has to pay the same. On this ground the District Forum allowed Rs. 2,287/- as compensation and cost of litigation in favour of the complainant but further directed that this amount shall not be paid in cash but it shall be adjusted towards the bill of September, 2002. In our view this part of the impugned order is not in accordance with the facts on record. When the District Forum has held that in the revised bill the Board was entitled to include DPS charge and other charges but by mistake it was not included in the earlier revised bill that does not amount to deficiency in the service. It has not caused any harassment to the complainant. It was only a calculation mistake which according to the appellant-Board was due to not correct feeding made in the computer. However, this mistake was rectified subsequently and hence in the revised bill the tariff and DPS were added. However, we agree with this finding of the District Forum that the amount of compensation which is at the lower side Rs. 2,287/- and cost of litigation be adjusted towards the future bill. This part of the order has not caused any prejudice to the complainant-respondent. However, we are in agreement with this submission of the Electricity Board-appellant that there was no material before the District Forum to come to the conclusion that by not including these amounts in the earlier revised bill the bill clerk was at fault. This mistake may be bona fide. There is nothing to show that it was mala fide. As such the bill clerk is not entitled to pay this amount out of his salary. Therefore, this part of the order of the District Forum is set aside. We do not find any substance in the contention of the appellant-complainant made in Appeal No. 202/2003 that District Forum should have allowed him heavy compensation considering his mental and physical torture and should not have asked the amount of compensation to be adjusted in the future bill. We have already stated above that inclusion of tariff and DPS charges in the subsequent revised bill does not amount to deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board nor it was a deficiency not to include this charge in the earlier revised bill. It was only a clerical mistake which was rectified subsequently when detected. Therefore, we do not find any merit in Appeal No. 202/2003 which is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal No. 103/2003 is allowed in part with the above modification as indicated above. The Board shall adjust Rs. 2,287/- awarded as compensation and cost to the complainant-respondent in the future bill of September, 2002 but this amount shall not be deducted from the salary of the bill clerk. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.