CHATTAR SINGH vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

CHATTAR Singh, appellant/complainant has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 2.3.2000 passed by the District Forum, Ludhiana. The claim in appeal is to accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

THE complainant/appellant is the consumer of respondents, P.S.E.B. THE complainant was depositing regular consumption charges to the respondents. All of a sudden a bill for Rs. 44,085/- was received, in which a sum of Rs. 38,462/- was included illegally on account of some average charges for the period 6/1995 to 7/1996 on the ground that meter during that period remained ''dead stopped''. THE complainant deposited the same under protest to avoid disconnection and after that he challenged the same before the District Forum. THE District Forum dismissed his complaint, hence, he has come up in appeal. In appeal before us, the appellant was represented by his representative Sh. S.S. Sarna whereas Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate appeared for the respondents.

Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate who appeared for the P.S.E.B. stated that the order passed by the District Forum is justified as it had fully considered the stand taken by the PSEB. To rebut this, Sh. S.S. Sarna, representative stated that under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, the respondents cannot charge average more than 6 months in case of defective meter, thus, the demand raised to the tune of Rs. 38,462/- is not in accordance with Rules of the P.S.E.B. and thus it is liable to be quashed. In this regard, he produced the judgment of Hon''ble National Commission reported as I (1993) CPJ 25 (NC). Para 18 of the judgment needs reproduction, which reads as under : "Before parting with this case we also wish to draw the attention of DESU to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in AIR 1987 Delhi 218, H.D. Shourie v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., and 1991 Rajdhani Law Reporter 312, Major Zorawar Singh v. M.C.D. The High Court has pointed out that ''The maximum period for which a bill can be raised in respect of a defective meter under Section 26(6) (Electricity Act, 1910) is six months and no more. Therefore, even if a meter has been defective for, say, a period of five years, the revised charge can be for a period not exceeding six months. The reason for this is obvious. It is the duty and obligation of the licensee to maintain and check the meter. If there is a default committed in this behalf by the licensee and the defective meter is not replaced, then it is obvious that the consumer should not be unduly penalised at a later point of time and a large bill raised''."

THE case in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of the National Commission (supra). We, therefore, accept the appeal and direct the opposite party to charge amount for six months on average basis. THE factual position of the case is that an amount of Rs. 38,462/- stands deposited in instalments by the complainant. THE opposite party has to deduct the amount for six months only and the remaining amount shall be refunded to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 2.3.2000 of the District Forum is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.