GAUTAM R.PATEL vs CHAIRMAN, GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS appeal arises from order dated 9.8.1999 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad dismissing Complaint No. 716 of 1997.

IT was the complainant''s case before the learned Forum that the meter in the complainant''s premises belonging to the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB for short) was duly sealed in a wooden box from the side of the opponent GEB. The complainant requested the opponent GEB time and often to change the meter and replace the same. However, on 21.9.1996, the meter got burnt. The complainant informed the opponent GEB. Concerned persons from opponent GEB went to the site, removed the seals and varified that the meter got burnt. The complainant requested for replacement of the burnt meter but the opponent GEB replaced the burnt meter only upon the complainant having been forced to pay Rs. 1,500/- being the charges for meter replacement and Rs. 100/- for broken seal. The complainant paid Rs. 1,600/- under protest as the complainant could not afford to allow the electricity supply remain disconnected for a longer period. The complainant, therefore, approached the learned Forum for refund of the amount, compensation and cost. The opponent GEB canvassed relevant condition of the ''Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of Electrical Energy'' before the learned Forum and contended that the complainant would not be entitled to refund of the amount and/or compensation and cost. The learned Forum came to the conclusion that the opponent GEB failed to establish the cause set out in the relevant condition for enabling the opponent GEB to recover charges from the consumer. However, the learned Forum did not uphold the case of the complainant on the ground that the complainant failed to establish ownership of the meter. Before us, the complainant would submit that even in the bill which is issued by opponent GEB the meter charge is being recovered. We have verified the bill and we find that the opponent GEB does recover meter charge from the consumers. It is not in dispute that the meter charge would mean meter rent or some charge for the meter owned by the opponent GEB being supplied to the consumers for use. This would evince the fact that the meter belonged to the opponent GEB and, therefore, it was the primary duty of the opponent GEB to see that the damaged or burnt meter was replaced by the said authority at its own cost unless of course it was found that the meter was damaged/or burnt due to fault on the part of the consumer as envisaged by relevant condition. We would reproduce the relevant condition for the completion of this order : "11(c) Every consumer shall compensate the Board for any damage and cost of making good any damage caused to the mains, apparatus or instrument or any other property of the board in the consumer''s premises occasioned by reason of any act, neglect or default of consumer, his servants or persons employed by him and, in addition, shall pay such penalties prescribed or lawfully due to the Board for continued unauthorised interference with the Board''s property or seals."

As stated above, in the present case, there was no evidence before the learned Forum to establish the cause set out in the aforesaid condition. The burden of proof was obviously on the opponent GEB. Opponent GEB has not made an inquiry into the matter. It has also not given a show-cause notice to the consumer, the complainant in the present case, with regard to any alleged cause as stated in the aforesaid condition attributable to him. Thus, even if there was any fault on the part of the complainant, principles of natural justice would require the opponent GEB to give/afford reasonable opportunity to show cause or of being heard to the complainant. That having not been done, the condition could never have been canvassed in support of recovery of the charges from the complainant.

It is also not the case of the opponent GEB before us that the meter belonged to the consumer the complainant in the present case. In that view of the matter, the very reason why the complaint has not been entertained falls to ground. The complainant who has paid the amount of Rs. 1,600/- under protest would obviously be entitled to refund of that amount. No other point has been canvassed by the complainant who has personally remained present. We, therefore, pass following order. ORDER Impugned order dated 9.8.1999 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad dismissing Complaint No. 716 of 1997 is hereby set aside. The complaint is allowed to the following extent : (i) Opponent Gujarat Electricity Board is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,600/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from 23.9.1996 till payment and cost quantified at Rs. 300/-. This appeal is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. (ii) The above direction shall be complied with by the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board within eight weeks from today.

Appeal allowed.