Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs GANOORAM SAHU

THIS is an appeal directed against order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rajnandgaon (hereinafter referred to as ''the District Forum'' for convenience) in Complaint No. 42/2000, on 12th April, 2001. The District Forum has directed the appellant to refrain from disconnecting power supply to the complainant/appellant and also to refund the amount of Rs. 5,309/- recovered from the appellant on 10.8.2000 with interest @ 12% till the date of payment.

THE complainant has averred that he is a consumer of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Board and has been paying the bills regularly. On 20.6.2000 a bill for Rs. 10,618/- was sent to him on the basis of audit report for 96-99 with direction to pay the same within a month. THE letter forwarding the said bill also mentions that the meter was not working between July, 1996 and January, 1998 and, therefore, lower amount was billed earlier and hence the difference was being demanded. The opposite party/appellants have in their reply to the complaint averred that during audit it was directed that the meter for the complainant''s connection was not running and hence bills were issued on the basis of average consumption. The consumption was assessed at 3003 units while payment for only 268 units was collected. Therefore, a bill for 1361 units consumed for Rs. 5,563/- was issued. Rs. 5,309/- has also been paid against the said bill. It is also contended that the earlier bill for Rs. 10,618/- has subsequently revised and reduced to Rs. 5,309/- in correction of mathematical error.

First and foremost issue before us is to decide whether the appellants were entitled to claims the amount of the disputed bill. The only basis appears to be the audit report although it has been added that the meter was closed during the said period and only average consumption was billed. But there is nothing on record to explain the basis of such an assumption. Even if this were the situation no action for Panchnama or verification of the meter appears to have been taken. Therefore, mere remarks of the auditor cannot justify the raising of bills. The District Forum has placed reliance on Harishkumar v. Chief Engineer Electricity Board, in I (1993) CPJ 299=1993 (2) CPR 320 CDRCMP.

THE learned Counsel for the appellants strongly argued that the complainant/respondent who is running a video hall has paid only average bill for the period is question and has been billed for the average consumption as per rules. It is also contended that the rebate for the amount paid has also been thereby reducing the amount of earlier bill from Rs. 10,618/- to Rs. 5,563/-. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent that the Board cannot arbitrarily issue bill for any amount without any proper and valid basis under rules and mere audit report cannot form such basis. In our opinion the District Forum has passed a just and proper order in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference. Therefore, in view of the above the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own cost. Appeal dismissed.