DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs NARESH KUMAR

ON account of deficiency in service inasmuch as the appellant company did not take any action for enhancement of the load as requested by the respondent for sufficiently long time and thereby causing loss to the respondent the appellant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 besides Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. The bills raised on the basis of inspection dated 26.3.1999, 30.3.1999 have also been quashed on the ground that the appellant failed to follow the procedures for enhancement of load.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant-DVB has directed appeal. Relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent had two electricity industrial power connections of the load of 7.46 KW and 0.36 KW. In January 1996 he declared the load as 16.5 KW and deposited an amount of Rs. 12,972 and in spite of this declaration the appellant failed to replace the meter and provide necessary service line. As a result the respondent dropped the idea of starting his business and made payment of bills upto March 1999. However on 26.3.1999 on inspection was made by the officials of the appellant and seals were found tampered with and hence a bill amounting to Rs. 49,998 was served on the respondent. In order to avoid disconnection of the power the respondent made payment of Rs. 28,200. Surprisingly another bill was received by him for Rs. 1,48,700.71 and he made payment of Rs. 18,200 in order to avoid disconnection. The aforesaid bills were raised on the basis of inspection made on 26.3.1999 and 30.3.1999.

It appears that these bills were raised merely on the declaration of the respondent that he wanted the load enhanced from 7.46 KW to 16.5 KW. Even if it is assumed that the load being used was 16.5 KW there was no basis for raising the aforesaid bills without serving the copy of inspection report to the respondent with regard to the tampering of meter and that too without affording him an opportunity to explain. It is not understandable at to why the inspection was conducted on 11.1.1996 when the request for enhancement of load and declaration of the load as 16.5 KW was made.

EVEN if it was a scheme under which the voluntary disclosure of connected load was made still the fact remains that the bills should have been raised on the basis of actual consumption. The bills raised on the basis of inspection made on 26.3.1999 and 30.3.1999 were for a period much prior to the date of inspection, not even for the period from the date when the declaration was made. Keeping in view the pattern of the old bills and the amount of Rs. 28,200 and Rs. 18,200 having been deposited by the respondent against the illegally raised bills on the basis of the said inspection we feel inclined to allow the appeal partly by deeming Rs. 28,200 and Rs. 18,200 as payment towards actual consumption of electricity. Extra amounts, if any, shall be refunded or shall be adjusted in the future bills.

APPEAL is disposed of in above terms. Fdr/Bank Guarantee, if any, filed by the appellant be returned after completion of due formalities. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal disposed of.