C G STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL

-THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 7. 8. 2006, in Complaint No. 13 of 2005 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja-Ambikapur (hereinafter referred to as the ''district Forum'' for short) by which the complaint of the respondent was allowed and it was directed that the electric meter installed in his premises, be got tested by the Electrical Inspector and the payment of additional electricity bill dated 8. 9. 2004 shall remain suspended till the meter was tested by the Electrical Inspector and that the payment of the said additional electricity bill dated 8. 9. 2004 would be subject to the satisfaction of the complainant with the test report of the Electrical Inspector. Besides, costs of the complaint was also awarded.

INDISPUTABLY, the complainant/respondent is a hospital and had obtained an electric connection from the appellant/electricity Board. It is also not in dispute that the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant/respondent was inspected by the Superintending Engineer, Vigilance of the appellant/electricity Board on 7. 5. 2003. Thereafter, an additional bill of Rs. 3,63,147 was served on the complainant/respondent. The averments of the complainant were that the inspection and checking undertaken by the Superintending Engineer of the appellant/ Electricity Board on 7. 5. 2003, was without any intimation and notice to the complainant/ respondent. It was further averred that the said additional bill of Rs. 3,63,147 was for the period from May 2003 to July 2004. It was further averred that the complainant never interfered with electric meter and that the conclusion of the test report dated 7. 5. 2003 by the Superintending Engineer, Vigilance that one phase of the said electric meter was found to be disconnected, was totally baseless and arbitrary. It was averred that the said bill was sent to the complainant / respondent without any justification. It was, therefore, prayed that the said additional bill dated 8. 9. 2004 as also the subsequent bills relating to the consumption of electricity till 31. 12. 2004 be directed to be reviewed and matter be referred to the Electrical Inspector.

The complaint as above was resisted by the OP/appellant-Electricity Board. It was averred that the checking on 7. 5. 2003 of the electric meter of the complainant/respondent was held in the presence of the complainant''s representative. It was further averred that out of the three phases of electric connection in the said meter, one phase was found to be disconnected and dysfunctional. Therefore, on the basis of the said checking report dated 7. 5. 2003, the consumption of electricity by the complainant/respondent was revised and recalculated on the basis of which additional bill for Rs. 3,63,147 was served on the complainant/respondent, as per the rules of the appellant/electricity Board. It was further averred that since the complainant/respondent raised objection to the checking report dated 7. 5. 2003, the meter was again got checked by the Electrical Inspector, who also confirmed that one of the phases of the meter was disconnected. Therefore, the additional bill served on the complainant/respondent was justified and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

THE District Forum, by the impugned order, allowed the complaint and as noticed above directed that the payment of additional bill dated 8. 9. 2004 would be subject to checking and testing of the electric meter by the Electrical Inspector. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

THE contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant/electricity Board mainly was that since on inspection by the Superintending Engineer, Vigilance of the appellant/electricity Board on 7. 5. 2003, one phase of the meter was found to be disconnected, as would be clear from the said report, an additional bill was justifiably raised after recomputation of the electricity consumption of the complainant/respondent. It was submitted that as the meter itself was not defective but that a phase of the said meter was found disconnected, hence there was no justification for restoring of Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act as has been observed by the District Forum. It was further averred that the complainant was liable to pay revised additional bill in accordance with the rules of appellant/electricity Board. Learned Counsel for the respondent has, however, supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the checking of electric meter by Superintending Engineer on 7. 5. 2003 was conducted ex parte without intimating the complainant/respondent and that there was not justification for raising additional bill on the assumed premises that the consumption of the electricity in the complainant''s hospital was actually more than that was recorded by the meter. In view of the controversy and contention as above, the main question that arises for consideration is: as to whether the appellant was justified in issuance of the additional bill on the basis of checking report dated 7. 5. 2003?

THE copy of the said checking report dated 7. 5. 2003 marked as Exhibit P8 has been placed on record of the complaint. It would be clear therefrom that the said checking was conducted by the Additional Superintending Engineer (Vigilance) of the appellant Electricity Board on 7. 5. 2003 along with his staff. It also appears that the said checking report was also signed by Sister Georgina (Administrator), through whom the complainant/respondent has filed the present complaint. It, therefore, appears from the said report that the allegation of the complainant/respondent that the checking was done without notice and intimation to the complainant and in the absence of any representative of the complainant/ respondent, is without basis; and as noted above, the checking was in the presence of the complainant''s authorised representative, Sister Georgina.

THE report dated 7. 5. 2003 Exhibit P8 clearly indicates that one phase of the electric meter was dysfunctional and was not connected. This was also stated to be so by the appellant in response to the several letters issued by complainant/respondent and addressed to the appellant/electricity Board. It further appears that possibly because the complainant was raising objections, the electric meter was again got checked in the presence of Electrical Inspector on 31. 12. 2004 and it was again found that one phase was not connected. The finding of the earlier checking report of the meter was thus confirmed. The said inspection report is marked as Exhibit D1. It may be noticed in the above context that the District Forum in the impugned order observed that though it is stated that no representative of the complainant has appended his signature in the inspection dated 31. 12. 2004. However, the perusal of the said report Exhibit D1, would clearly disclose that a note has been appended therein that the complainant''s representative refused to sign the said report. That being so, it is clear that the complainant''s representative was present at the time of subsequent inspection dated 31. 12. 2004. However, the said representative refused to sign the report. Moreover, as noticed above, the additional bill was raised on the basis of the report dated 7. 5. 2003 (Ex. P8), which was duly signed by the complainant''s representative. In the circumstances, the absence of the signature on the subsequent inspection report (Ex. D1) which was undertaken on the request of the complainant would, in no case, be material.

It would therefore be clear that one of the phases of the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant''s hospital was found to be disconnected on 7. 5. 2003 and on that basis, an additional bill was served on the revised calculation of the electricity, deemed to have been consumed by the complainant/respondent. The appellant/electricity Board are entitled to recover the amount of the electricity charges for the electricity actually consumed by the complainant/respondent. Therefore, the additional bill dated 8. 9. 2004 was justified. It may also be pointed out that since there was no defect in the electric meter, hence Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act would not apply. As noticed above, it was a case in which the meter itself was not defective but the phase thereof was found to be disconnected.

ACCORDINGLY, the complainant could not establish that the additional bill dated 8. 9. 2004 was issued without proper justification or that the complainant was not liable to pay the same. The issuance of such bill would not amount to any deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint deserved to be dismissed. For the reasons stated as above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint stands dismissed. Appeal allowed.