DALJIT SINGH vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE resolution of this appeal revolves around interpretation of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

THE appellant before us is the complainant before the District Forum, Hoshiarpur, whose complaint filed under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been dismissed vide order dated 24.6.1996 under challenge passed by the District Forum, Hoshiarpur. Facts in brief are that the complainant Daljit Singh is the sole proprietor of M/s. Deeson Silk Mills, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur. His grouse is that his electric connection No. 54-B 32/0046 and the electric meter installed at his industrial premises was checked by SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Hoshiarpur on 4.10.1996 and the same was found defective and the meter was changed by him. Once again Flying Squad of the Board made the checking of the electricity meter on 15.10.1991 and reported that the meter was dead on two faces and CTC have been broken out. THEreafter, bill dated 21.10.1991 for Rs. 46,111/- was issued to him and to save his electric connection, he deposited the bill. He filed the complaint before the District Forum that the bill under challenge for Rs. 46,111/- has been arbitrarily issued to him. '' THE Board has contested the complaint and justified the issuance of the bill inter alia stating that the meter checked by the Flying Squad on 15.10.1991 was found dead on two faces due to improper joints in the leads of the meter CTC and the same was set right at the spot and as such the account of the complainant was rightly overhauled from May, 1991 to September, 1991. On the basis of the report of the SDC, he was found liable to pay additional amount of Rs. 46,111 / - in dispute. On the request of the complainant, the matter was referred to the Dispute Settlement Committee and the allegations of the complainant were examined by the Committee and were found frivolous. After hearing the complainant as well as the Board and affording due opportunity of leading evidence to the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

Both Mr. M.S. Ratta, Advocate appearing for the complainant-appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate appearing for the Board had relied upon Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act. Mr. Ratta without placing any instructions on the record contends that at the maximum the Board can have the bill issued or revised within three years from the date of last checking done by the Board under instructions issued by the Board. It is profitable to quote Section 26 in extenso: 26. Meters .-(1) In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the amount of energy supplied to a consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter, and the licensee shall, if required by the consumer, cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter: Provided that the licensee may require the consumer to give him security for the price of a meter and enter into an agreement for the hire thereof, unless the consumer elects to purchase a meter. (2) Where the consumer so enters into an agreement for the hire of a meter the licensee shall keep the meter correct, and in default continues, cease to be liable to pay for the hire of the meter.

(3) Where the meter is the property of the consumer, he shall keep the meter correct, and, in default of his doing so, the licensee may after giving him seven days'' notice, for so long as the default continues, cease to supply energy through the meter.

(4) The licensee or any person duly authorised by the licensee shall, at any reasonable time and on informing the consumer of his intention, have access to, and be at liberty to inspect and test, and for that purpose, if he thinks fit, take off and remove, any meter referred to in Subsection (1), and, except where the meter is so hired as aforesaid, all reasonable expenses of, and incidental to such inspecting, testing, taking off and removing shall, if the meter is found to be otherwise than correct, be recovered from the consumer, and, where any difference or dispute arises as to the amount of such reasonable expenses, the meter shall be referred to an Electrical Inspector, and the decision of such Inspector shall be final: Provided that the licensee shall not be at liberty to take offer remove any such meter if any difference or dispute of the nature described in Sub-section (6) has arisen until the matter has been determined as therein provided.

(5)A consumer shall not connect any meter referred to in Sub-section (1) with any electric supply line through which energy is supplied by a licensee, or disconnect the same from any such electric supply line, but he may by giving not less than forty-eight hours notice in writing to the licensee require the licensee to connect or disconnect such meter and on receipt of any such requisition the licensee shall comply with it within the period of the notice.

(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in Sub- section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of other party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector, ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the matter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity: Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days'' notice of his intention so to do.

(7) In addition to any meter which may be placed upon the premises of a consumer in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (1), the licensee may place upon such premises such meter, maximum demand indicator or other apparatus as he may thinks fit for the purpose of ascertaining or regulating either the amount of energy supplied to the consumer, or the number of hours during which the supply is given, or any other quantity or time connected with the supply. Provided that the meter, indicator or apparatus shall not, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, be placed otherwise than between the distributing mains of the licensee and any meter referred to in Sub- section (1): Provided also, that, where the charges for the supply of energy depend wholly or partly upon the reading or indicator of any such meter, indicator or apparatus aforesaid, the licensee shall, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, keep the meter, indicator or apparatus correct; and the provisions of Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) shall in that case apply as though the meter, indicator or apparatus were a meter referred to in Sub-section (1). Explanation: A meter shall be deemed to be "correct" if it registers the amount of energy supplied, or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, within the prescribed limits of error, and a maximum demand indicator or other apparatus referred to in Sub-section (7) shall be deemed to be "correct" if it complies with such conditions as may be prescribed in the case of any such indicator or other apparatus."

IT is the admitted case of the parties that the meter installed at the premises of the consumer has been hired out by the Board to the complainant and hence it is the property of the Board. By relying upon the finding of the District Forum, Mr. Kaushal, learned Counsel for the Board has submitted that if the consumer was aggrieved by the issuance of the bill in dispute, he should have reported to the remedy of arbitration to the Electrical Inspector as stipulated under Sub-section (6) of Section 26.

MR. Kaushal has frankly conceded that it is not the case of the Board that the consumer of electricity tampered the meter or in any way indulged in the theft of electricity and no step whatsoever has been taken against the consumer in pursuance of the checking of the electric meter by the SDO on 4.10.1991 and rather the meter has been changed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Board was not justified in overhauling the bills issued before 4.10.1991 when it itself has found the meter installed by it defective and the meter was changed. On the checking of the electric meter on 15.10.1991 by the Flying Squad, the Board was not entitled to overhaul the account from May, 1991 to September, 1991 and to issue the bill for the additional amount of Rs. 46,111/-. The checking of the meter by the Flying Squad subsequent to the earlier checking of the meter cannot empower the Board to issue the arbitrary bill. If the official of the Board was of the view that the meter installed was not correctly recording the electricity consumed then, in our view, remedy available with the Board was Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Electricity Act to have the reference to the Electrical Inspector and to get settled difference of dispute from it. In the matter of supply of electricity, the Board enjoyed the status of monopoly concern. In issuance of the bills to the consumers, the Board cannot be permitted to behave at its mere whims and caprice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the issuance of the bill in dispute amounting to Rs. 46,111/- is absolutely arbitrary and thereby the Board has rendered deficient service to the consumer and hence cannot be permitted to realise the amount in pursuance of the said bills. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum, Hoshiarpur dated 24.6.1996 is set aside and the bill in dispute-dated 21.10.1991 for Rs. 46,111/- issued by the Board is quashed and the Board is directed to. refund the amount of Rs. 46,111 /- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date it was deposited till repayment as compensation, deposited by the consumer in pursuance of the quashed bill. However, we leave the Board at liberty to proceed against the consumer in accordance with law, if it so desires. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.