BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SRIPATI JHA

THIS appeal has been heard ex parte, as the respondent did not appear in spite of the notice. O.P. (Bihar State Electricity Board) has preferred the appeal against the order dated 10.11.2003 passed by the District Forum, Motihari in Complaint Case No. 183/2001 whereby and whereunder directed the appellant to prepare the bill of complainant on the basis of meter reading and to give this bill within a period of one month and to pay Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation including legal expenses.

THE brief fact of the case is that complainant alleged that he was consumer of the Board bearing No. 4121/9/132. He received a bill of Rs. 4480.40 in the month of March, 99 showing consumption of 150 units. He was served another bill of Rs. 5378.90 for the month of April, May and June, 99 with consumption of 450 units. THEreafter, he did not receive bill from July, 99 to October, 2000. He received another bill in the month of November, 2000 for Rs. 11,425.90 for the period July, 99 to 2000 with a consumption of 1200 units and again he received bill in the month of March, 2001 for Rs. 13349.90 showing consumption of 300 units. THE contention of the complainant is that these bills are defective and were not as per meter reading. THE Electricity Board has never issued monthly and regular bill to the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed the case before the District Forum. THE complainant''s contention was that this bill may be set aside and the Board may be directed to send fresh bill on the basis of meter reading without any tariff charge. The Electricity Board appeared and submitted that it is admitted fact that complainant has not paid electric energy charge since March, 99 and still consuming the electric energy. The Board has not take any coercive steps and has not disconnected the line of the complainant. The complainant has filed the case in order to defraud the Board of the above amount, which is lying due against the complainant. The complainant''s meter became defective for which he was informed. As such, as per rule and as per load factor on the basis of 150 units per month he was charged as per tariff rule but the complainant did not pay this amount. Therefore, order of the District Forum that Board should issue fresh bills on the basis of meter reading is wrong on the facts of the case because the complainant''s meter was defective since long and he was supplied bill as per tariff rules of 150 units per month. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board nor it is in a position to issue fresh bill unless the meter is replaced for which the complainant has been asked to purchase another meter and get it tested but he has not taken any interest rather he has filed this case with false allegation and in order to make delay in payment. The Board is suffering huge loss at the hands of the complainant.

We have perused the impugned order and we are of the view that the District Forum has failed to consider this fact that Board has informed the complainant that his meter has become defective and he was requested to purchase a new meter so that it may be replaced after test as the Board has no meter in his stock. The information was given to the complainant but he has taken no step. The District Forum has also failed to consider this fact that because of defective meter as per tariff rule and load factor the Board is entitled to charge @ 150 units per month as fixed charge. The District Forum has also failed to consider that complainant has not paid any amount of the above bills since March, 1998 and has been consuming the electric energy since March, 1999 without any payment. Therefore, the impugned order of the District Forum is bad both in law as well as in fact. We do not find any error in the bills submitted by the Electricity Board to the complainant. The complainant has consumed electric energy during this period; therefore, he is entitled to pay the electric consumption charge as per bills submitted by the Board.

IN the fact and circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complainant-respondent is directed to pay the above amount of the bills, which is arrear against him within a month from the date of this order, and if the amount is not paid within a month the Electricity Board shall be entitled to take coercive steps including disconnection of the electric connection, if it has not been disconnected as yet. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.