BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs KIRAN DEVI

THIS appeal and Appeal 171 of 1994 have been filed against common order dated 27.4.95 passed by the District Forum, Sitamarhi disposing of Cases No. 107/93 and 108/93 and these two appeals have been dismissed as time barred by this Commission by a common order dated 18.7.95. But the respondents were directed to show as to why some of the directions given by the District Forum in its impugned order be not quashed as such directions can not be given under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act).

THE learned Counsel for the respondents have been heard on this point. For the disposal of this question some of the facts of the case may be noticed with utmost brevity. The complainants in the two cases filed before the District Forum alleging inflated and excessive electric bills on the basis of higher tariff and for the period when there was no electric supply to them as the transformer concerned was burnt.

The District Forum by the impugned order has ordered the opposite party not to charge anything for the period from 25.5.92 to 27.8.92 during which period electric could not be supplied to the complainants as the connected transformer was burnt and if the electric bill for that period has already been paid by the complainants, to refund the same to them with interest and to replace the defective meters in presence of the complainants or their agents.

THE District Forum has also directed the opposite party to introduce the system of sending bi-monthly bills with all details by rotation on zonal basis, if opposite party is unable to send the bills to every consumer in every month. THE relevant part of the order is contained in para 6 of the impugned order, which reads as follows :- "We accordingly direct the opposite party that in case if he is unable to send bills to the consumers regularly every month, he shall, within two months introduce the system of sending bi-monthly bills as indicated above, with all the details, by rotation on zonal basis. Failure to carry out this direction shall be construed to be an act of disobedience punishable under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act."

But such directions can not be given by the District Forum and the opposite party is to be guided by law and standing order of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Board) with regard thereto. The District Forum has further directed the opposite party to charge electric bill monthly tariff of Rs. 22/- w.e.f. 20th September, 1993 instead of Rs. 27/- which the opposite party has been realising from the complainants. But such direction also can not be given by the District Forum as the question of tariff for pricing of the energy supplied can not be looked into under the provisions of the Act as this question is not a consumer dispute under the Act.

THE District Forum has also directed the opposite party to replace the burnt transformer latest by 30th of June, 1994 and maintain supply of electric energy with requisite voltage to both the consumers failing which the complainant will be entitled for compensation for the inconvenience caused to them @ Rs. 25/- per day from 1st of July, 1994 until the replacement of the transformer. THE complainant has impleaded Assistant Engineer Electricity only as the Opposite party. According to the Order No. 6349 dated 1.10.91 issued by the Board, the burnt transformer can be replaced only when 75% of the energy dues against the connected consumers of that particular transformer are realised. THE opposite party being only an employee of the Board can not disregard the instructions issued by the Board. THE Board has not been impleaded as an opposite party in the case. If the transformer has not been replaced by opposite party because of the failure of the consumers concerned to pay 75% of the dues, it can not be said to be negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. However, such direction can not be given by the District Forum in the absence of the Board and without hearing the Board. Hence the directions given by the District Forum in paras 6, 11 and 16 of the impugned order can not be sustained and that part of the impugned order is hereby set aside under Section 17(b) of the Act as the District Forum has acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction and to that extent the impugned order stands modified. There is, however, no order as to cost. Directions set aside.