Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs HARVINDER AGRAWAL

THIS is an appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereby the order dated 19.2.2004 in Complaint No. 74/01 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja, Ambikapur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) has been put under challenge.

INDISPUTABLY, the complainant/respondent herein, is the proprietor of Jagdamba Rice Mill situated at Lakanpur, Sarguja. He had obtained an electric service connection No. 98062/4 from the appellant Electricity Board. The complainant averred that the electric meter installed in his premises got burnt and, therefore, he was paying average electric bill in the past. It was further averred that the appellants served him with an additional bill for Rs. 1,97,471-60 paise on 15.7.2000 on the allegation of excess electric consumption in the mill, by the complainant/respondent. The complainant averred that the said bill is excessive and has been served on him without justification. It is also averred that appellant Electricity Board has no right to recover arrears bills for a period of more than 6 months. The complainant, therefore, prayed that bill dated 15.7.2000 for Rs. 1,97,471-60 paise be cancelled and compensation of Rs. 2,000 be awarded to him.

The opposite parties/appellants herein resisted the complaint. Their averments were that on inspection meter was found missing in the service connection of the complainants/respondent and that he was utilizing electricity by drawing the line directly from the pole. It was also found that he was utilizing 60 horse power load in his rice mill and, accordingly, the consumption of the said load was calculated of utilization @ 8 hours per day during busy season of the rice mill from November to April and utilization @ of 4 hours per day, for the lean season of the rice mill from April to October. Bill for additional amount of Rs. 1,97,471.60 paise was accordingly served on the complainant. It was averred that the service of additional bill was justified and there was no deficiency in service by the appellants and the complainant was, therefore, not entitled to any relief.

THE District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint, and directed that the matter should be referred to the Electrical Inspector and till such time the decision is arrived at, the bill of Rs. 1,97,471-60 paise would not to be realizable from the complainant. Rs. 1,000 as cost of complaint was also awarded to the complainant/respondent. Learned Counsel for the parties heard. Record perused.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is erroneous and as the District Forum has proceeded with the assumption that the dispute was referable and could be decided by Electrical Inspector. It was submitted that as there was no meter at all, therefore, there was no question of dispute regarding defect in meter; hence the dispute was not referable to Electrical Inspector. It was further averred that since there was no meter in the rice mill of the complainant/respondent and as he was utilizing the electrical energy by drawing the line directly from the pole, he was committing theft of electric energy. He was, therefore, liable to pay additional amount as demanded by the appellant Electricity Board. In view of the load connected in the rice mill, the bill was wholly justified. Learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that there was no justification, whatsoever, for issuance of additional bill, in view of the fact that the complainant had all along been paying the average bill sent to him by the appellants. It was also submitted that bill for the period of more than 6 months could not have been realized. It may be mentioned, at the outset, that the additional bill appears to have been issued by the appellants Electricity Board on the basis of spot inspection report dated 23.6.2000 by its flying squad. The said report discloses that there was no meter in the rice mill and connected load was 60 horse power. The capacitor was out of order, and the complainant was paying minimum bill.

IN view of the above report, it is clear that the allegations of the appellants Electricity Board were that there was no meter at all in the premises of the complainant. Thus, there was no dispute regarding the defect in meter. The electric supply was being obtained by connecting electricity line directly from the pole. This amounts to theft of electricity.

IN the above circumstances, in fact, there being no dispute regarding the defect in the meter as pointed out above, therefore, dispute could not be referred and decided by the Electricity INspector under Section 26 of the Electricity Act; as the same envisages dispute regarding the defect in the meter. Moreover, since the complainant/respondent was drawing the electric supply by directly connecting his installation from the pole, it amounted to theft of electricity. That being so, there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between them. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any relief, against the appellant Electricity Board. It is, therefore, clear, that the District Forum erred in directing the reference of dispute to the Electrical Inspector and also observing that additional bill of Rs. 1,97,471-60 paise shall not be realizable from the complainant till the decision of dispute by the Electrical Inspector. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and the complaint, deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint stands dismissed. Appeal allowed.