Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna vs BALDEO SAO

O.P. (Bihar State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as Board) is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 29.5.2003 passed by District Forum, Patna in Complaint Case 229/99 whereby and whereunder the following direction has been given to the appellant: (i) To rectify the electric mistake of the disputed bill within a month; (ii) The complainant on receiving the rectified bill shall make payment within a month; (iii) O.P. on receipt of payment of the dues as per rectified bill shall give connection with a meter to the complainant within a month.

THE brief fact of the case is that complainant is a consumer of the Board and he was given a commercial connection by the Board and bill for the month of July-August, 1987 with meter reading as 764 unit were charged amounting to Rs. 833.42. THE total amount in the bill is shown as 1833-42. Thus, the bill is inflated by Rs. 1,000/- (Annexure-1). It is further allegation that electric bill for September to December, 1988, August-September, 1989 and of the subsequent months as per Annexure-2 to Annexure-7, the bills were sent to the complainant but they all had electric mistake and they were inflated. THE bill for the month of February, 1995 (Annexure-7) shows present reading as 2623 and past reading 2627 with total charge of Rs. 26,860.02 which on its face is incorrect. It is further alleged that Assistant Electrical Engineer of the Board came to the house of the complainant and took away the meter for which a receipt was granted to him. THE final reading shown in the meter at the time of removal was 2625 dated 26.8.1995 (Annexure-8). THE complainant''s contention is that he was ready to pay the electric bill but the O.P. failed to send correct bill in spite of repeated reminders, then the complaint was filed. The O.P.-Board appeared and filed reply. The main contention of the Board is that complainant''s connection was commercial connection since long; therefore, tariff has to be charged as per commercial connection. The bill for the month of July-August was on average basis and not as per meter reading as the meter was defective since April, 1985. The reading on average was 90 units per month. Similarly, a subsequent bill of September, 1987 was also on average basis. The rate of average was enhanced from 90 units on the basis of 30% load factor as per the then tariff with effect from April, 1985. The bill was for 1320 K. Watts. The other subsequent bills were also on the average basis and they were charged as tariff applicable on the date of bill. The complainant has failed to pay any of the bills, hence his line was disconnected on 5.2.1994 and meter was removed on 20.8.1995. It is also the case of the O.P. that complainant was found stealing energy by means of Toka on 18.2.1999 when an inspection team visited his house and F.I.R. was lodged vide Case No. 194/99 with the local P.S. The bill as per latest tariff has been raised and sent to the complainant. Thus, the contention of the complainant is not justified and the bills are not arbitrary or inflated.

The District Forum after hearing the parties and on security of the bills held that complainant''s meter was removed on 20.8.1995 and thereafter O.P. has lodged F.I.R. against the complainant on 18.2.1999. On this basis, the District Forum held that complainant''s complaint petition is hit by limitation and complainant is accordingly not entitled to any claim of damages or compensation but the District Forum held that the clerical mistake in the bills (Annexure-1 to Annexure-7) appears to be apparent, therefore, directed the Board to correct the bill and sent the fresh bill. It is admitted fact that complainant had a commercial connection and he failed to produce meter at his own cost for replacing the defective meter. Therefore, the Board was entitled to charge average billing and it has been increasing regularly as per tariff rule.

THE main contention of the respondent before us is that appeal is not maintainable and the direction given by the District Forum is based on principle of natural justice and it will not cause any prejudice to the Board. THE complainant-respondent is agreeable to pay the amount of fresh bill issued by the Board. The main contention of the appellant before us is that the main objection of the Board before the District Forum was that the complaint is hopelessly time-barred and it is not maintainable. This contention has been accepted by the District Forum and it has been held that since the complaint is time-barred the complainant is not entitled for any relief including of compensation or damages. Therefore, in future order or direction given to the Board as detailed above is not in accordance with the law because the complaint petition was void ab initio on the ground of limitation and fit to be dismissed.

WE have perused the impugned order whereas the District Forum has held that the complaint petition was lodged much after the cause of action arose to him. Thereafter, a criminal case was lodged against the complainant for committing theft of electric energy when his meter was removed by the Board due to default in the payment. The District Forum has held that complaint petition is badly hit by limitation and the complainant does not appear to be entitled for claim of damages/compensation, etc. Therefore, any other order passed thereafter by the District Forum is bad in law and not sustainable. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.