C.E.S.C. Limited vs KRISHNADHAN NAG

THIS is an appeal arising out of an impugned judgment passed by the District Forum, Howrah, dated 30.6.2000. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a consumer of the CESC Ltd. The consumption of energy through his meter since 1990 was 70-75 units on an average per month. His meter was changed by the CESC Ltd. for several times, but the last one also was defective and the CESC raised the electricity bill on average basis. He alleged that the bill for 11/99 for Rs. 3,515/- had shown consumption of 866 units without showing the meter reading in the bill. In 12/99 bill the consumption shown of 858 units, but till today the present pending is 0018, which was inspected by the CESC people. THIS meter had been changed by the CESC on 4.9.1999 admitting that the previous meter was defective. The initial meter reading of the present meter was 0018, but even now the reading remained the same. So the O.P. has placed a dead meter in place of a defective meter. He made complaint on 7.12.1999, but his request was not heeded to in regard to inflated bill. For this reason he filed the case before the District Forum.

IN its judgment the Forum below directed the CESC to replace the defective meter by a standard meter within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order and it was further directed to ascertain the consumption of previous disputed bills on the basis of the consumption of units of energy for the period of six months from the date of the replacement of the defective meter and to raise fresh bills month by month for the period from 21.5.1998 to the date of replacement of the existing defective meter by a new one. The excess payment, if any, made by the complainant shall be adjusted to the benefit of the complainant from the total amount of the bills. The complainant shall pay the bills as would be raised for the consumption after the replacement of the defective meter. Admissible rebate also be given in the fresh bills to be raised as per the order. Being aggrieved by the order of the Forum below the CESC has preferred this appeal before the Commission. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits in the memo of appeal that the meter in question was not defective since 21.5.1998. The bills were raised on its previous pattern of consumption and hence the bills were raised on provisional units as per past pattern of consumption. It is further stated by the appellant that from 21.5.1998 to till date the respondent (herein) should pay the bills as raised and in case of any doubt, the billing dispute may be referred to the Electrical Inspector for adjudication.

On careful perusal of the papers we notice that the respondent is a bona fide consumer of CESC. It is an admitted fact that his meter was changed by the CESC for several times. The last defective meter was also changed by a dead meter. The respondent submits that when the defective meter was in its position he received excessive and fictitious bills which he did not pay. In its order the Forum directed the CESC to ascertain the consumption of energy per month after replacement of the defective meter by a new one and accordingly to raise the bill for a period of 6 (six) months on average basis from 21.5.1998 to the date of replacement of the existing defective meter and the excess amount paid by the appellant shall be adjusted. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently opposes it and submits that the Forum has no authority to assess the bills of its own, and according to him if there is any grievance about the amount of bill arising from any defects in the meter, the matter should be referred to CEI, West Bengal, for proper adjudication.

WE also perused Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which contains that "where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is not correct, the matter shall be decided upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector, and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector, ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy...". Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to a judgment reported in 1997 (1) CHN 50, CESC v. N.M. Banka, which reflects that, "The consumer should have approached the Electrical Inspector straightaway if he was aggrieved by the bills. The Court should have declined to intervene when the consumer approached the Court. The Court should have directed the consumer to avail the statutory remedy." We find much substance in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and are of the opinion that the Forum has no authority to assess the bills. Therefore, the matter is referred to the CEI, W.B., for adjudication and the appellant will take necessary steps accordingly. The CEI would do well to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of reference. Be it mentioned that the decision of the CEI will be binding on both the parties. The cost of the meter will be borne by the appellant.

THE appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum is set aside. A copy of this order is sent to the respondent immediately. With such observation the appeal is disposed of. Appeal allowed.