BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Kaushalya Sinha

IN this revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 1.2.2010 passed by Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (for short ''State Commission''). Vide impugned order, State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

BRIEF facts are that respondent/complainant is widow of late Dr. Surendra Narayan, in whose name electricity connection under domestic category for 1 KW was there. Meter of respondent was defective and she had been paying electric bills regularly on fixed rate of 200 united per month. She paid all the bills upto February, 2002. On 1.11.2001, she purchased a new meter and submitted to the petitioners/opposite parties for its verification and testing and after that it was installed removing the old one.

IT is alleged by the respondent that suddenly she received an electric bill of Rs. 41,612.28 for the month of March, 2002 under commercial category. Thereafter, another bill of Rs. 48,414.07 for the month of June, 2002 was sent to her. She made several representations to the petitioners but in vain. After that on 29.8.2002, a complaint was filed before District Consumer Protection Forum, Bhagalpur (for short ''District Forum'') against Bihar State Electricity Board and others for deficiency in service, as bill under commercial service category was raised without any joint inspection. Respondent prayed for issuance of fresh bill as per meter reading without interest and also claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000 as litigation cost.

IN the written statement, Petitioner''s defence is that the meter of respondent was defective and accordingly she was being billed on the basis of average consumption. The respondent paid the bill upto February, 2002 under domestic category. Since March, 2002, the bill was issued to the respondent under commercial category. On 11.7.2001, inspection of the premises of respondent was carried out by the Team of the Board wherein, it was found that respondent was using 3 KW load under commercial category, in place of sanctioned load of 1 KW under domestic category. It is further stated that respondent never paid any of the bills since March, 2002, either under domestic category or under commercial category. Hence, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to get any reliefs. It is also stated that the person who fraudulently and dishonestly consume or abstract the energy is not the consumer of the Board.

DISTRICT Forum vide order dated 5.6.2006, allowed the complaint of the respondent and passed the following order: (i) The bill issued under commercial category is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to issue the fresh bill under domestic category on meter reading without charging any interest. (ii) To inspect the premises of the complainant, within 15 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order. If the complainant is found using electricity for running shop in any portion of the premises, the new electric connection under commercial category may be installed immediately. (iii) The said inspection report may be given to the complainant after getting her consent and signature over it. (iv) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 3,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as a cost of litigation within 45 days from the order. The said bill may be adjusted against the fresh bill of the complainant."

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed its appeal by the impugned order.

IT is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the bill in question was raised on the basis of surprise inspection done by the officials of the petitioners and respondent was found using 3 KW load against the sanctioned load of 1 KW. The electricity was also found being used in running "Shop" in the said premises, which comes under the commercial category. A memorandum of Inspection was prepared and delivered to the respondent''s representative i.e. his son on the spot. Thereafter, respondent did not turn up and raise any objection.

ON the other hand, it is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that alleged inspection report prepared by the petitioners officials have not been proved, as no evidence was led to prove the report before the District Forum.

IN view of the concurrent findings given by the Foras below, present revision petition is not maintainable.

DISTRICT Forum in its order has held: "From perusal of the aforesaid facts, complaint petition, written statement and the documents submitted by both the parties, it transpires that the complainant had electric connection under domestic category. The husband of the complainant died on 27.2.2001. The complainant paid the bills upto 2/02, which is admitted by the opposite parties in their written statement. The meter of the complainant was defective, which is admitted by both the parties. The complainant submitted that her electric connection was under domestic category. The bills, which served upto 2/02 under domestic category, were already paid. The bill received in March, 2002 under commercial category is wrong and illegal. The opposite parties argued that the complainant had sanctioned load of 1 KW under domestic category. On 11.7.2001, the inspection for verification of load of the premises of the complainant was carried out by the Inspecting Team wherein she was found using load of 3 KW. Perused Inspection Report. It is clear from its perusal that the house load has been shown as 2030 watts and shop-load (one bulb - 100 watts + one fan 60 watts) as 160 watts. It is very clear from the Inspection Report that there is a shop in any one of the rooms of the said house but it is not clear whether the said shop is used for the purpose of doctor''s work or for selling other things. The husband of the complainant died on 27.2.2001 even then the opposite parties from the said domestic connection issued the electric bill under commercial category for the whole month of March, which shows the negligence and arbitrariness on the part of the opposites parties. If the complainant was found using the load of 3 KW, she must have been billed on 3 KW under domestic category which has not done by the opposite parties. Hence, this shows negligence and arbitrariness on the part of the opposite parties. So, the bill issued by the opposite parties under commercial category is hereby set aside. The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh revised bill on meter reading under domestic category without levying any interest."

STATE Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum and observed: "It is admitted by both the parties that the bill till February, 2002 was deposited by the respondent. It is also admitted that the meter was defective and bills were sent on at the fixed rate of 200 units. The new tested meter was installed on 1.11.2001. In March, 2002, she received the electric bill of Rs. 11,612.28 under commercial category and, thereafter she did not make any payment of bill. We are not inclined to accept the contentions by the appellant that the complainant has no legal stand to file complaint, because the respondent is a consumer and this case comes under the purview of C.P. Act. It was the Board''s prime obligation to remove the defective meter and instal the new and defectless meter as soon as and charge accordingly to meter reading. Inspection must be made either in presence of the consumer or authorized representative even the Supreme Court upheld this view. Even the so called inspection report was not proved by affidavit evidence of competent witness though it was challenged by the complainant. No details is given by the appellant that how the appellant calculated the amount in dispute. The appellant has not led any evidence in the reply. It is very reasonable and balance order of the District Forum for both the parties. We do not understand why the Bihar State Electricity Board has come in appeal."

AS per findings of the State Commission, inspection was not done in the presence of respondent or its authorized representative nor the same has been proved by the petitioners.

UNDER these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

IT is well settled that under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ''Act''), scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited.

RECENTLY, Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC)=IV (2011) SLT 303=2011 (3) Scale 654, has observed; "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora."

IT is well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants, who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence goes on filing meritless petitions in different Foras.

THUS, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Act. Since, two Fora below have given detailed and reasoned orders which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Thus, present petition is hereby, dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only).

PETITIONERS are directed to deposit the costs of Rs. 10,000 in the "Consumer Legal Aid Account" of this Commission, within four weeks from today.

IN case, petitioners fail to deposit the said costs within the prescribed period, then they shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

LIST on 9.12.2011 for compliance. Revision Petition dismissed.