Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs YOGESH KUMAR VARSHANEY

-SINCE, both these appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arise from the same order dated 5. 2. 2007 in Complaint No. 35/06 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the ''district Forum'' for short), they are being disposed of by this common order. Since, these appeals are cross-appeals preferred by each of the contesting parties, they shall be referred to as complainant and O. P. , as arrayed in the complaint.

IT is not in dispute that the complainant- Yogesh Kumar Varshaney was given an electric connection under service No. 234961 by O. P.- Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (CSEB for short ). The sanctioned load of the said connection as per agreement between the parties was 2250 watts. It is further not in dispute that the meter installed at the complainant''s premises, was inspected by the engineer of the CSEB on 17. 3. 2005. According to the said inspection report, the load on the said connection was found to be much more than the sanctioned capacity. It is further not in dispute that an additional bill of Rs. 90,403, dated 18. 3. 2005, was served on the complainant. Indisputably, the complainant has also paid the said amount. The complainant has raised grievance in the complaint regarding raising of additional bill of Rs. 90,403 as above. It was further averred that a new meter was installed on 21. 3. 2005, by the lineman, who again reported that one phase of the meter was defective and dysfunctional. The complainant, therefore, wrote a letter dated 1. 4. 2005 to the OP-CSEB that the problem as above persists, upon which the engineer of the CSEB took away the meter and sent it to the laboratory for testing. It was averred that the complainant though raised grievances about the unfair action of the officers of the CSEB but there was no response. He also wrote letters dated 29. 4. 2005 and 18. 5. 2005 to the CSEB. He further averred that the meter was defective and a phase thereof was not functioning. He, therefore, prayed that the bill amount of Rs. 90,403 paid by him towards additional bill be directed to be refunded with interest. He also prayed for compensation being awarded.

The complaint was resisted by the OP/cseb. It was averred that on checking of the complainant''s meter on 17. 3. 2005, it was found that the meter was not recording proper reading. It was further averred that there was a rotary switch attached at the back of the meter, the manipulation thereof could make the disk in the meter to start or stop. Therefore, interference with the meter as above resulted in the lesser reading than the actual consumption. Therefore, the actual electric consumption of the complainant was recalculated and revised additional bill of Rs. 90,403 was sent to the complainant as per rules. It was averred that the demand by the additional bill was justified. The complainant has committed electric theft. It was, therefore, averred that there was no deficiency in service by the OP/cseb.

THE District Forum held that since the body seal was found to be tampered in the laboratory and the meter was found to be defective, therefore, the same should have been got inspected by the Electrical Inspector. However, since this was not so done by the CSEB, hence, the amount demanded by additional bill was liable to be refunded to the complainant. Accordingly, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the amount of Rs. 90,403 of the additional bill to be refunded to him. Cost of Rs. 1,000 was also awarded in favour of the complainant. The appellant/cseb in appeal No. 108/2007 has challenged the impugned order and has prayed that the same be set aside. The complainant in Appeal No. 117/2007, however, prayed that the interest on the awarded amount ought to have been granted and has prayed that the same be awarded in appeal.

LEARNED Counsel for the parties were heard and record perused. The learned Counsel for CSEB submitted that the checking report dated 17. 3. 2005 would clearly indicate that there was tampering with the meter and, consequently, the meter was not recording the true consumption. Therefore, additional bill was justifiably issued to the complainant. It was submitted that since the additional demand was justified in view of theft of electricity by the complainant, hence; there was no deficiency in service in doing so, by the OP/cseb. Learned Counsel for the complainant however, submitted that the order of the District Forum directing refund of the amount of additional bill was wholly justified. It was further submitted that the complainant was also entitled to the interest on the said amount and prayed that the same be awarded.

WE have considered the submissions as above. The basic question that arises for consideration is : as to whether there was defect in the meter or there was interference in the connection thereof and, thus, theft of electricity by the complainant, as has been alleged by the OP/cseb?

IN the above context, the report dated 17. 3. 2005 by the vigilance department of CSEB is relevant. The copy thereof is filed on record of the complaint, from which it would appear that in the incoming connection of the meter a rotary switch was fixed. A figure has also been drawn on the same report which shows the position of the rotary switch. The operation of the said rotary switch affected the moving of the disk of the electric meter. Thus, by manipulating the said switch fixed at the back of the meter, the movement of disk of the meter could be controlled. In other words, the disk could be made to start rotating or stop rotating by the help of the said rotary switch. Needless to say, the recording of electric consumption by the meter, depended on the movement of the disk, which could be easily controlled by the said rotary switch. Thus, it was a clear case of interference with the electric meter and theft of electric energy. It is also mentioned in the report dated 17. 3. 2005 that the theft was to the extent of 19584 watts. Therefore, from the above report dated 17. 3. 2005 of the vigilance department of CSEB, it is abundantly clear that there was interference with the electric connection installed in the premises of the complainant, which facilitated lesser recording of the electric consumption. Obviously, therefore, the meter itself was working properly but this connection was presumably interfered by the complainant as has been alleged by the OP/cseb.

The conclusion as above is also fully supported by the inspection report dated 1. 4. 2005 by the E. E. of CSEB which clearly shows that there was interference with the meter by the complainant. In view of above, it was a clear case of theft of electricity by the complainant. Therefore, there was no need for referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector. The view as has been expressed by the Apex Court in Sub-Divisional Officer (P), Uhbvnl v. Dharam Pal, I (2007) CPJ 16 (SC)=ix (2006) SLT 332. It has been laid therein that there is no scope of reference of dispute to the Electrical Inspector, under Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, in case of tampering with the electric connection.

IN view of above, it appears that the impugned order of the District Forum is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Therefore, Appeal No. 108/07 by the OP/cseb is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint stands dismissed. Consequently, Appeal No. 117/07 by the complainant - Yogesh Kumar Varshaney is also dismissed. It is directed that the complainant,shall pay to the OP/cseb cost of this litigation including that of the complaint as well as of these appeals, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) only. Ordered accordingly.