D K Industries vs Sub -Divisional Officer Electricity Operation Sub -Divn , Topasa Ramasa Patil V. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore And Others , Air 1989 Kar 279

THE complainant owns Plot No. 36, Industrial Area, Chandigarh where D.K. Industries (Regd.) was running business and the complainant was one of the partners. THE aforesaid industrial unit possessed three power connections of the total magnitude of 180 KW. It has been further averred that there was a recession in his unit and w.e.f. 10.9.1993 the premises were let out to M/s. Laxmi Agro Industrial Consultants & Exports Pvt. Ltd. who started manufacture of acid etc. It was on 26.2.1996 that the complainant received an electricity bill to the tune of Rs. 8,76,852/ - as sundry charges. A copy of the bill is Annexure C/3. In this complaint the aforesaid bill has been challenged alleging that there was no justification for levying sundry charges for the period July, 1989 to April, 1994 because whenever the electricity bills were received those were always paid regularly. THE details of the electricity bills paid by him are contained in Annexure C/11, It has further been alleged that C.T. of the electricity meter of the complainant was burnt thrice. It was reported in time, the meter was changed by the respondents after receiving the required charges. One such payment was made on 29.4.1994 vide Receipt No. 339 (Annexure C/12). THE relief claimed by the complainant is as under: (i) that the demand of sundry charges of Rs. 8,76,852/ - should be waived; (ii) damages to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/ - on account of mental and physical harassment and the costs.

IN the reply filed by the respondent, it has been averred that the complainant had three electric connections and the details thereof are given as under : S. No. Account No. Name of consumer Load in KW Cat. of tariff 1. 1 -2/3 M/s. D.K. Industries 81.063 Medium supply 2. 1 -3/107 M/s. R.K. Industriies 18.650 Small Power 3. 1 -3/478 M/s. R.K. Exports 18.120 Small Power and it was wrong that power connection of the complainant was for 180 KW. The complainant could not transfer consumption of electricity to M/s. Laxmi Agro Industrial Consultants and Exports Pvt. Ltd. At any rate since M/s. D.K. Industries are the consumers the bill is issued in their name. Sundry charges pertain to the period July, 1989 to April, 1994 and the average @ 20338 units per month is based on consumption for the period 5/94 to 4/95. It has further been averred that the aforesaid sundry charges have been rightly calculated.

It shall be useful to refer to some questions, their replies and other important part of the cross -examination of Shri Balbir Singh, Executive Engineer, Electricity Department which are reproduced as under: Q. Have you brought the record relating to complaint made by the consumer/complainant in June, 1989 or during the entire year 1989? A. No. The complaint book of 1989 is not with me. Q. Are you prepared even now to bring or need more time to locate the complaint book for the year 1989? A. I myself did not deal with the complaints and the concerned SDO appears to be busy in some other piece of work today. There is no complaint regarding pilferage or damage to any seal from 1987 till date. Q. Was the meter in question referred to Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6)? A. It was not referred. Q. Was any check meter installed by your department when the meter was found to be defective? A. No. Q. Can you tell that at what point the meter was found defective by any official? A. There is no complaint on record from any Meter Reader or any other officer of our department. Q. On what basis the present bill has been issued to the complainant?

A. The consumption pattern from May, 1994 to May, 1995 was taken into consideration to revise the bill for the period July, 1989 to April. The criteria of 1987 to 1994 was taken into consideration because some relevant Ledgers were not available with us.

The file relating to this complaint regarding the bill dated 22.6.1989 is not traceable. I am unable to tell whether any decision was taken on the complaint or not.....

It is incorrect that I filed my affidavit without verification from the records.......''

IT may be plausible to demand some arrears or say sundry charges provided there was pilferage or damage to any seal on the meter or other tangible outstanding amount. Here the Executive Engineer of the respondents specifically tells that there was no complaint regarding pilferage or damage to any seal from 1987 till date and in this case the meter in question was never referred to Electrical Inspector nor necessity was ever felt to instal a check meter. Thus it appeared to be no justification for demand of sundry charges.

IT is not that the electricity was not consumed by the complainant or his tenant during the period bills C -30 to C -47 were issued by the respondents. On an adjourned date this Executive Engineer after verifying from the department specifically told that the bills C -30 to C -47 were issued by the department. There is nothing to indicate that any of these bills remained un - realised. It appears that on 19.2.1992 the complainant reported that the C.Ts. were damaged and in this regard he deposited a fee of Rs. 150/ - for rectification. The aforesaid Executive Engineer has told that it was set right in 1994. There is no explanation on the part of the respondents for this delay. At any rate, the specific reply that there was no complaint regarding pilferage or damage to any seal from 1987 till date, the demand of sundry charges is not justified.

THE respondent department while preparing the demand of sundry charges has taken into consideration the pattern of consumption from May, 1994 to May, 1995 in respect of the period July, 1989 to April, 1994. The reason for adopting the recent trend of consumption is that the relevant ledgers for the old and relevant period were not available with the department. Firstly the non -availability and non -production of the relevant ledger is the circumstance which goes against the respondents and secondly the method of adopting the recent quantity of consumption as the formula is also un -natural and is wholly unjustified. On behalf of the complainant Punjab Electricity Board and Another v. Ashwani Kumar, CIV (1993) PLR 447 has been referred to wherein it was observed that monopoly by the State could not mean absolute arbitrariness. It was not open to the officers to act arbitrarily and raise demands for substantial amounts of money without even affording an opportunity of hearing or representation to the citizen. In Khurshed Sorabji Cooper. v. Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, AIR 1995 Bombay 79, it was observed that only Electrical Inspector could opine whether the meter had ceased to be correct. The arbitrary back billing was held unjustified in Topasa Ramasa Patil v. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and Others, AIR 1989 Karnataka 279. In M.P.E.B. and Others v. Suit Basantibai, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 71, the jurisdiction of Electrical Inspector has been recognised. It may be reiterated that in the case now in hand there was no plea that the meter was slow or that there was pilferage. The electricity bills were paid monthly/bi -monthly as and when received. There was no indication even that the bills were provisional during this period of about five years. The consumer cannot be fastened with the sundry charges arbitrarily and the respondent could not justify the demand in question.

THE complainant let out the premises on 10.9.1993 to M/s. Laxmi Agro Industrial Consultants & Exporters Pvt. Ltd. There was a plea of the respondents that the complainant consumer could not part with the benefit of agreement of use of supply of electricity granted by Electricity Department. This plea does not render the complainant ineligible to challenge the demand of sundry charges in the facts and circumstances of the case now in hand. The conclusion is that the complaint succeeds, the demand of sundry charges in question is hereby set aside. The deposit made ad interim shall be refunded within two months. The complainant shall also be entitled to costs Rs. 3,000/ -. This shall be payable within two months. Complaint allowed with costs.