ELECTRICITY BOARD SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, U.P. STATE vs KRISHAN GOPAL RASTOGI

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.11.1995 passed by District Consumer Forum, Badaun, in Complaint Case No. 28 of 1994. The facts of the case are as follows : The complainant Krishan Gopal Rastogi was running sugarcane crusher in village Dharampur, Tehsil Basauli, District Badaun and for that purpose he had taken an electric connection from opposite party of 80 H.P. on 28.11.1990. The officials of the opposite party carried out an inspection of the premises of the cane crusher and it was found that only 2/3rd of the consumption of power was being recorded by the power meter. On instruction from opposite party the complainant agreed to deposit 1/3rd more amount of the originally deposited amount. On the request of the complainant a check meter was installed but the said check meter was installed on the meter already installed which was defective. The meter was not made final for about 2 months and within this period the check meter was also showing the wrong reading. A complaint was made to the opposite party and a request was made for installing a new meter for which prescribed fee was deposited. The third check meter was later on installed. The complainant requested the opposite party to measure the load on the basis of the meter but this was not done. Both the check meter and original meter were defective. Inspite of complaint made to the opposite party the power connection was disconnected on 29.8.1991 without assigning any reason. The Assistant Engineer of the opposite party in his reports dated 27.11.1993 and 21.9.1993 has also found the check meter to be defective. The complainant had agreed to deposit 1/3rd amount over and above the amount of the bills inspite of this the power connection has been disconnected without finalising the meter. On 12.3.1993 a demand notice for Rs. 66,699/- was sent to the complainant and on 15.3.1991 and 31.3.1991 amount of Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively were deposited by the complainant. Inspite of this the connection was not energised rather a recovery certificate for Rs. 47,858.15 p. was issued against the complainant which amount was deposited in Tehsil Office on 30.12.1993. A complaint was made on 3.1.1994 to opposite party No. 2 but he was informed that a decision has already been taken in the matter. On 19.2.1994 a final bill of Rs. 14,066.79 p. was received by the complainant inspite of the fact that the amount of Rs. 47,858.15 p. had already been deposited in the Tehsil Office. The complainant, therefore, lodged a claim before District Consumer Forum that the power connection given should be got energised free of charge because of the disconnection arbitrarily done by opposite party. The complainant had to start crushing operation with the help of generating set which resulted into loss of Rs. 3 lacs during the course of 2 years and, therefore, the compensation of Rs. 3 lacs was also demanded. The excess amount deposited in the Tehsil be refunded to the complainant along with 15% interest. In addition an amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs was also claimed towards compensation for mental agony and torture along with cost of proceedings of Rs. 1,000/-.

IN their written version before the District Consumer Forum the opposite party stated that on 28.1.1990 at the time of checking of the premises it was found that 2/3rd power consumption was being recorded and, therefore, a check meter was installed on 2.1.1991. The check meter installed shows that the consumption was much more than which was recorded by the previous meters. The new check meter shows that 79 K.W. representing 94.43 H.P. load was being used by the complainant which was much more than the sanctioned load of 80 H.P. The complainant was unable to satisfy as to how the excess power was being used. On the other hand the complainant stated that the meter reading was wrong. On the basis of first check meter reading from 28.11.1990 to 22.2.1991 an amount of Rs. 66,699.31 was charged and bill was sent to the complainant on 7.3.1991. The complainant deposited Rs. 75,000/- but even this amount of Rs. 75,000/- did not include the excess demand required as per reading of the meter. From 1.3.1991 onwards the complainant stopped the payment of the bills when the complainant was defaulter for an amount of Rs. 23,747.88 p. When the opposite party went to the premises of the complainant on 10.6.1992 to finalise the meter the complainant was not available. A bill for Rs. 28,687.66 was sent to the complainant by registered letter which included the previous bill of Rs. 23,743.88 along with postal charges. The registered letter was returned unserved. It was the case of negligence of the complainant that the check meter was not finalised and the power connection was disconnected because of non-payment of dues. On the basis of the instructions receive from higher authorities the amended bill on the basis of 1/3rd excess consumption was sent to the complainant which amounted to Rs. 1,11,510.56 p. because the check meter has not been finalised. After adjusting Rs. 75,000/- deposited by the complainant the balance amount was Rs. 36,510/-. Again on 2.3.1993 a bill of the amount of Rs. 53,351/- was sent to the complainant but the same was not received. On 25.6.1993 a notice for termination of the contract was sent to the complainant which was not received by him. On 27.9.1993 Recovery Certificate of the amount of Rs. 43,500/- was issued against the complainant on the basis of old meter reading. The complainant on 29.10.1993 wanted adjustment of the security and the amount already deposited by him. Finally an amount of Rs. 14,666.79 p. was charged in the bill dated 19.2.1994 and the recovery certificate was withdrawn and final bill was made. The department terminated the contract on 8.8.1992. The complainant was entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 29,433.60 p. and the department is ready to refund this amount. The security is also liable to be refunded subject to production of receipt. Thus there has been no deficiency on the part of opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to any claim. The District Consumer Forum after hearing both the parties decreed the complaint and directed the opposite party to energise the connection of complainant without realising any further amount within a period of one month and the Forum also directed the opposite party to make a refund of Rs. 3,805/- and Rs. 44,000/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment. A compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- were also awarded.

Aggrieved of the order of the District Consumer Forum the opposite party has come in this appeal.

WE have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel of the two parties. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that during checking of the premises of the complainant it was found that the meter was showing only 2/3rd of the consumption of power and, therefore, a check meter was installed and that is why the complainant had agreed to pay 1/3rd of the amount for the excess consumption. The check meter was again checked and it was found that the complainant was taking excess load than what had been sanctioned. The Electricity Board had asked the complainant to complete necessary formalities in regard to sanction of extra load which the complainant failed to do and when the officials of the Board went to check the meter and consumption pattern they were prevented from doing so. Recovery Certificates of the amounts were issued against the complainant on the basis of the reading of the check meter. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the complainant had deposited the entire amount of the bills and he had only asked for the refund of the excess amount levied on him. The first check meter installed by the opposite party was defective even the second check meter installed was also defective. It was further argued that the respondent had deposited an amount of Rs. 75,000/- against the demand of Rs. 66,699/- and inspite of this a recovery certificate of Rs. 47,858/- was issued against the complainant and even this amount was deposited. Inspite of this a further demand of Rs. 14,066.79 p. was raised on the complainant. The recoveries so raised against the complainant were through the Revenue Department and he had to pay 10% as collection charges. The security is lying with the opposite party which too has not been refunded inspite of the fact that power connection was disconnected. The learned Counsel had stated that the complainant is, therefore, exasperated and he no more wants the connection and what he wants is the refund of the excess money along with security deposit and the amount of loss sustained by him as a result of harassment to him by authorities of the opposite parties. A careful perusal of the records placed in the appeal file will go to show that the dispute relates to the quantum of consumption of power. The case of the complainant is that he had been using the connection with a load of 80 H.P. and that on checking by the opposite party''s staff when it was pointed out that the meter was showing only 2/3rd of the real consumption then he was asked for the check meter to be installed so that correct figure for consumption of electricity could be arrived at. In this connection a check meter was installed by the opposite party but the same was defective and again the complainant was told that he has been using excess power than what has been sanctioned. When a third check meter was installed the same was also defective. The opposite parties did not agree with the plea of the complainant and continued to raise the bills against the alleged excess power used. A perusal of the papers will go to show that the complainant had made representation to the department that the check meters installed and also the original meter were defective and he has not been using excess power. The complainant has also been requesting the officials of the opposite party to finalise the meter but for a sufficient long time no attention was paid. On the contrary the version of the opposite party is that when they went to the premises of the complainant on 10.6.1992 the complainant was not available and he did not later on cooperate with the authorities of the Electricity Department. Thereupon a registered letter was sent to the complainant which came back unserved as the complainant was not available. It was admitted by the opposite party that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 75,000/- against the demand of Rs. 66,699.31 but at the same time the opposite party had adjusted the excess amount are towards the subsequent consumption of electricity used by the complainant and subsequently a recovery certificate for Rs. 43,500/- was issued against the complainant as further arrears piled up.

IN connection with the demand made by the complainant that excess amount has been charged because of the defective meter and defective check meters and, therefore, the controversy should be finally resolved, the Department of Electricity did not take prompt action. Annexure-9 of the memo of appeal is the D.O. letter written by Executive Officer to S.E. in which instructions were sought in the matter and without waiting for these instructions the opposite party swung into action and proceeded for disconnection of power connection. Annexure-3 is the memo of appeal which was also put up before the District Forum which contains the remarks given by the Executive Engineer that the consumer has insisted to instal another check meter for which check meter fee has been deposited. It was also ordered by the Executive Engineer that the controversy should be finalised immediately and for quite some time timely action was not taken by the opposite party and it was only at the later stage that the demands were made by the opposite party to get in touch with the complainant and according to the opposite party the complainant later on did not co-operate. Annexure-3 at page 26 of the memo of appeal clearly indicates that as desired by the complainant the demand indicator was not installed. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the opposite parties were not keen to finalise the check meter for which action had already been taken by the complainant. The fact that the meter and the two other check meters installed by the Electricity Board were not showing exact quantum of the electricity consumed is also established by the report of the Asstt. Engineer (Meter) of the opposite party wherein he had come to the conclusion that all the three meters are repairable. It was also pointed out by Asstt. Engineer, Sri Pankaj Kumar (pages 34-35 copy of which was filed by the complainant) that pressure coils of the two meters were found burnt and all the three meters are repairable. It was further observed by the Asstt. Engineer that no result of the check meter can be derived. He, therefore, recommended the permanent disconnection. The above discussion goes to show that the complainant was not provided the check meters which could have shown the correct reading of the power consumption and, therefore, the case for excess consumption has not been established. In the circumstances it was not proper on the part of the opposite party to have claimed excess amount from the complainant. Even the opposite parties have admitted in their written statement that the complainant was entitled to refund of Rs. 29,433.60 and security is also liable to be refunded if the formalities are completed. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum was right in coming to the conclusion that the amount deposited by the complainant be refunded to him. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, and the judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum are liable to be confirmed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall also pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of this appeal. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.