EXECUTIVE ENGINEER vs Jeetmal

IN this appeal by the Executive Engineer (Rural Electrification Corp.) RSED and others as against the order of the District Forum, Bhilwara dt. 14.9.92, the only question involved for determination is as to whether the levy of an amount of Rs. 746/- as load surcharge by the appellants in the electricity consumption bill sent in Aug., 91 to the complainant on the basis of internal audit report was justified. The complainant-respondent did not appear despite service but sent a written reply to the appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.

ADMITTEDLY the complainant-respondent had been sanctioned a 10 HP. load for his electricity motor installed in village Lakhola, Tehsil Sahada in District Bhilwara. The meter reader of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board had in the meter reading record card noted in the remarks column on 20.1.90 that the complainant had extended the load by 5 H.P. and thus he was availing of the electricity connection for a load of 15 H.P. Despite this report of the meter reader made on 20.1.90, the appellants continued to charge from the complainant on the basis of consumption of electricity energy as recorded in the meter. However, subsequently in july 1991 there was internal audit of the office of the Executive Engineer, RSEB, Bhilwara and the internal audit party pointed out that the complainant should have been charged for the extended load by an amount of Rs. 746/-. As a result of this internal audit report, the appellant sent electricity bill to the complainant in August 1991 adding an amount of Rs. 746/- on the basis of the said audit report. Upon these facts, the question for determination is whether this levy was justified. It is clear from condition No. 29 of the General Conditions of Supply issued by the RSEB that for any act of prejudicial use of supply, malpractice or theft, a consumer is liable for the various penalties mentioned in the conditions, without prejudice to his liability for prosecution for any offence constituted by the Act. It would appear from item No. 3 of condition No. 29 that where in non-domestic supply connections having connected load above 5 KW, consumer exceeds contracted or sanctioned connected load without specific permission of the Board, he is guilty of an act of malpractice with reference to the use of energy supplied by the Board. Under condition No. 29 A the officers of the Board have power to enter the premises of the consumer and to inspect it in order to find that the consumer has committed, or is being engaged in the commission of any act of prejudicial use of supply, malpractice or theft. If upon inspection made under condition No. 29 A, the authorised officer is of the view that the consumer has committed an act of malpractice or theft of energy, authorised officer shall disconnect the supply of energy to the consumer forthwith. It is quite clear that despite the report of the meter reader made on 20.1.90, no officer of the appellant inspected the connection and also did not record in any checking memo that prima facie there was an act of malpractice adopted by the complainant. No disconnection of electricity supply was made on that basis at any time.

The learned Counsel for the appellants referred to condition No. 29 E(3) of the General Conditions which provides that for the unauthorised extension of connected/sanctioned load, compensation shall be payable by a consumer @ Rs. 150/per KW per month when such unauthorised extension in connected load was detected by way of provisional assessment of the compensation. Suffice it to state that condition No. 29 E(3) of the General Conditions only come into application when the electricity supply of a consumer is disconnected by the authorised officer after inspection and upon revealition that there was any malpractice. This is clear from condition No. 29D of the conditions which provides that where the supply of a consumer is disconnected under condition 29B, the officer authorised under condition 29C to make provisional assessment of the compensation to be recovered for an act of malpractice or theft of energy as the case may be, shall before making such assessment ensure that a copy of the memorandum of inspection and seizure had been duly handed over or served to the consumer. As already stated there was neither any inspection nor any disconnection of the electricity supply under condition 29B by the authorised officer and further no memorandum of inspection had been served upon the consumer. According to the admitted facts of the case the amount of Rs. 746/- was levied simply on the basis of internal audit report. The internal audit report only pointed out the irregularity committed by the concerned officials of the RSEB and they alone were liable for their neglect of official duty. Consumer may only be liable if the procedure provided by conditions No. 29A, 29B and 29 D had been followed. That had not admittedly followed by the appellants and, therefore, the levy of an amount of Rs. 746/- upon the complainant in the electricity bill sent in August 1991 was not only unjustified but was also illegal.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to issue an order directing the appellants not to recover the amount of Rs. 746/-. It was urged that under Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it stood before its amendment on 18.6.93 the District Forum could not issue such orders. THE contention appears to be correct. However, the District Forum was competent to issue an order directing the opposite parties to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as a compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. THE complainant undoubtedly suffered when an illegal amount was demanded from him. THE complainant was, therefore, entitled to Rs. 746/- as compensation from the appellants for their act of negligence. We, therefore, while dismissing this appeal modify the order of the District Forum, Bhilwara and direct that the opposite parties appellants will pay a compensation of Rs. 746/- to the complainant-respondent. Appeal dismissed.