AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN nutshell the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is an Advocate practising at Bhiwani. He had taken on rent Room No. 9 at the first floor of premises of Vaish Senior Secondary School at Bhiwani from the appellants-opposite party. A meter bearing account No. XC-11-569 had been installed in that room. According to the complainant he had been using one tube-light in his office which was normally opened in the evening for two hours and in case of emergency, one bulb is put on use and one fan in summer season with the help of a plug in that room. The opposite party had issued bill dated 27.3.2001 showing reading as Old 70 and new 91 and total consumption mentioned in the bill was 340 units on average basis in the bill received by him. It is further case of the complainant that the opposite party had sent the bill on average basis in July 2001 without assigning any reason. He has further maintained that earlier he had received the bill for consumption of 140 units for two months but in the bill in question the opposite party had shown the consumption of 340 untis without any basis. Further the case of the complainant is that he had consumed only 21 units against the claimed units of 340 units made from him. Accordingly, it was prayed that the directions be given to the opposite party not to charge the bill consumption on average basis and the previous payment made by him be adjusted in the future bills. Additionally, he sought stay of the recovery of the amount of bill of Rs. 1,239; to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him and Rs. 1,100 as cost of proceedings. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. IN the written statement filed by the opposite parties, it was pleaded that due to low consumption the computer had shown meter installed at the premises of the complainant faulty and for the reason the bill on average basis had been sent to him. It was further stated that J.E. (Field) had been directed to check the premises and verify the working of the meter and thereafter, the J.E. had visited the premises but the same was found locked. It was further stated that on receipt of the report of the J.E. about the working of the meter, the account of the consumer would be overhauled and excess charged amount would be adjusted accordingly. It was further stated that the amount on average basis had been charged as per the circular of the opposite parties. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. The District Forum found no substance in the stand of the opposite party and while accepting the complaint as per order 30.10.2002 issued the directions to the opposite party to revise the bill of the complainant relating to the period 11.11.2000, 10.9.2000, 9.7.2000, 26/25.7.2000, 27/24.3.2000, 27.3.2001 and 29.5.2001 and to issue these bills on actual connected load/sanctioned load of the complainant with further direction to adjust the arrears of the bill in dispute in the future bills of the complainant. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs. 1,000 on account of mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and Rs. 500 as litigation expenses. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed by the appellants-opposite party.
LEARNED Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length. Learned Law Officer representing the appellants-opposite party while assailing the order of the District Forum vehemently urged that the District Forum did not appreciate that as per policy decision issued under the Sales Circular No. D-62/2000 for minimum 2.00 load the energy bill could be claimed from the complainant notwithstanding the fact that he may apply for 1.00 KW or 1.5 KW load and for that reason the complainant was duty bound to pay the bill issued to him on the basis of 2 KW load. It is manifest from the order of the District Forum that the complaint was accepted mainly on the ground that the opposite party could not adopt two methods for raising the electricity bills. One related to the case of electronic meter and the other was in respect of non-electric meter, whereas under the electronic meter the consumption was claimed on the basis of actual consumption and in case of non-electronic meter it was claimed on minimum 2.00 KW load, which distinction according to the District Forum was unjustified. Learned Counsel for the complainant has justified the above order of the District Forum for the reasons stated therein.
In order to decide the controversy raised notice is required to be taken of the terms of the Sales Circular No. D-62/2000 dated 18.12.2000 in respect of the connected load of domestic and non-domestic consumer. The relevant instructions read as under: "It has been observed that very low connected loads have been declared by the consumers at places where the connected loads are not available in our records, zero connected loads have been taken by the billing agencies for processing the electricity bills. This issue was reviewed and it has been decided to reverse the connected loads as follows: (i) For consumers living in rural areas and having connected load upto 0.5 KW, a revised connected load of 0.5 KW may be considered uniformly for all consumers. Similarly for consumers having load between 0.5 KW to 1.0 KW, the load be considered uniformly as 1.0 KW for all consumers. Loads above 1.0 KW are to be taken in round figures i.e. 1.5 KW for loads between 1.0 KW and 1.5 KW and 2.0 KW for loads between 1.5 KW to 2.0 KW and so on upto 10 KW.
(ii) For consumers living in urban areas with connected loads upto 2 KW, a uniformly connected load of 2 KW be considered for all consumers. The load between 2.0 KW to 3.0 KW is to be considered as 3.0 KW and load between 3.0 to 4.0 KW is to be considered as 4.0 KW and so on upto 10 KW. The service register and the connected load register may be got updated accordingly and the billing agencies be advised to update the master files of the consumers so that the bill processing is carried out in line with these connected loads."
Thereafter, another Sales Circular No. D-27/2001 dated 2.3.2001 was issued in this regard. The relevant portion of the Sales Circular reads as under: "Representations have been received wherein some consumers have indicated that their actual connected load is less than 2 KW and they are getting un-necessarily penalized for a load which is non-existent. It has accordingly been decided that those domestic and non-domestic consumers in urban areas whose connected load is genuinely less than 2 KW and are not defaulters may file an application with their concerned SDOs (OP) indicating the details of their actual connected load. The SDOs (OP) would get the details verified within 15 days and correct the connected load accordingly in the records. These connections shall be provided with electronic meters only. Sales Circular No. D-62/2000 dated 18.12.2000 stands amended to the above extent."
IT cannot be ignored that under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the licensee or the opposite party is entitled to set down the terms and conditions for supply of energy. Therefore, under these provisions it can frame uniform tariff or unilaterally alter the conditions of supply. The District Forum, as such, has no power to change this policy. That being so, admittedly, the complainant has been provided with a meter at his premises which is not an electronic meter and, therefore, he is duty bound to pay energy charges as per Sales Circular noticed above at the minimum rate of 2.00 KW. This legal position has not been given due consideration by the District Forum and for that reason the impugned order cannot be sustained. For the aforesaid reasons, while accepting the appeal the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Appeal allowed.