CHAMANLAL MADHAVJI vs GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

-THE appellant is the original complainant who had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Rajkot raising a grievance that the respondent Gujarat Electricity Board has given the last bill for Rs. 21,284.98 for electric consumption charges though his average consumption for two months comes between Rs. 80/- and Rs. 90/-and he had paid the last bill for Rs. 69.92 for December, 1991 to March, 1992. He has only one fan, one tubelight and two lamps in his residence. He is not doing any other activities where electric power is necessary. His bill, therefore, cannot exceed Rs. 70/-. THE respondent-opponent contended that the last bill which was given to the appellant-complainant was for 7800 units. THE bill was correctly given as per meter reading. GEB has filed the affidavit of one Ghanshyam Nanalal Pujara who was the meter reader in Jonesnagar area before April/May 1992 wherein he has stated that he has prepared the electricity bill of the appellant and other persons of that area on adhoc minimum basis because of the threat given by the appellant as well as other persons of that locality. He has given this explanation on 7.9.92 to the Board. One Mr. Mahendra U. Mehta has also filed the affidavit in support of the respondent to the effect that on account of threat and obstruction by the people of that locality to the meter readers it was not possible to take the reading and under that threat the bills for minimum charges were given to the appellant and other persons of that locality. In order to justify the bill of 7300 units the explanation has been given by the officers of the Board that if average consumption of 190 units (bi-monthly billing) is taken for 97 months, the consumption would come to 9215 units. THE bill, is therefore, less than the average consumption of 97 months and the appellant-complainant is required to pay the bill.

MR. Y.S. Lakhani, the learned Counsel appearing for the GEB has submitted that the bill has been prepared according to the meter reading and according to the condition of supply every consumer of electricity is bound to pay the charges according to the meter reading. If the original bills which are given are for less consumption even then the Board has a right to charge the consumer in accordance with the reading of the meter and in this case the appellant-complainant has not challenged that the meter was running fast or that it had recorded the consumption too high. The explanation which has been given by the meter readers and other officers of the Board are genuine and correct reasons. On account of threat and obstruction of the people of that locality the meter reader was not able to enter in the premises of the strong headed persons and for that reason the Board cannot suffer. The Board has a right to recover the value of electricity consumed by the appellant complainant. So far the submission of Mr. Lakhani, the learned Counsel for the Board is concerned, the same shall have to be accepted in view of the condition of supply but the question that arises is as to whether the Board would be justified in charging the consumer who has in fact not consumed the electricity during the last two months'' period to the extent of 7300 units. Can the story of the meter reader and other officers of the Board be accepted particularly when the period is too long. Was it not necessary for the Deputy Engineer-in-charge of the Sub Division to report this matter to the Board in time and can he wait for 7 years? Would this not amount to deficiency in service because it is an admitted position that the rates of electricity have been revised from time to time. In other words, Mr. Mehta''s argument is that if the bills have been correctly preferred by the officers of the Board, the rates applicable to the consumer would be less than one half. Mr. Mehta''s further argument is that on account of the default of the meter reader, the consumer cannot be compelled to pay higher charges on the threat of disconnection. The Board shall have to restructure all the bills by taking at the most the average and apply the rates that were prevalent at the date when the bill ought to have been prepared. Mr. Mehta again states that knowing fully well that this was not the last bimonthly consumption of the complainant, for non-payment of this amount, the electricity has been disconnected resulting into great inconvenience, loss and damage to the appellant-complainant. If the appellant-complainant or any other persons who are alleged to be strong headed, the Board could have taken police protection but they cannot wait for 7 long years and all of a sudden prepare a bill of high amount and disconnect the supply of the consumers.

We are constrained to say that the argument of Mr. Mehta appears to be quite logical. According to Mr. Mehta, the appellant-complainant is a very poor man and is a hawker moving with hand cart from place to place. He further states that no complaint ever has been filed against his client and merely because the officers who have defaulted in making the bill and taking police protection if they are threatened and if they had a fear cannot be accepted. There is a great difference between the last bill and the disputed bill and if the consumption is found to be disproportionate, the new bill should be prepared on an average consumption and in that case his client will not be liable to more than Rs. 70/-. We find some substance in this argument also. We are of the opinion that the Board should investigate the matter and take proper action against the erring officers since it is amply proved that last bi-monthly consumption cannot come to 7300 units. In any view of the matter, we are of the opinion that if the case of the Board is that this consumption is the consumption of last 7 years, then the average of each month should be taken and the rates that were prevailing at the relevant time be applied and fresh bill be prepared which Mr. Mehta says his client will pay under protest and he may be permitted to file an application before the authority who will reconsider the whole case and give the findings thereof. Before us both the parties agree that the Board will re-cast all the bills by taking the average and will apply the rates that were applicable for the bi-monthly bills and prepare new bill for payment and will decide the application of the complainant if it is made, by the highest authority. The Board will also reconsider to continue the electricity connection of the complainant on payment of some reasonable deposit to ensure future bills so that the appellant-complainant may not suffer inconvenience. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The Board shall re-structure the bills by taking average as agreed by Mr. Y.S. Lakhani as a solution to this problem and charge the appellant-complainant according to the rates prevailing from time to time and will consider his application for reconnection. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.