GITA RANI CHAKRABORTY vs STATION SUPERINTENDENT, BANKURA, W.B.S.E.B.

THAT the allegation of the complainant/appellant is that she used to pay monthly bill for electricity consumption within the range of Rs. 32-50p, to Rs. 37/- but the consumption bill suddenly increased from the month of July, 1991 to September, 1991 at Rs. 87/- per month on average.

THE further allegation of the complainant/appellant is that the meter was defective and to that effect she wrote several letters dated 25.7.91, 28.11.91 and the letter dated 13.8.92 through her Advocate Sri Chanchal Kumar Sinha informing about the defective meter. It is admitted that the meter No. 2060E/ D-93 standing in the name of the complainant/ appellant is defective since July, 1991. Inspite of that defective meter is still existing at the premises of the complainant/appellant and inspite of giving a number of representations for replacement of the defective meter, the concerned respondent has not taken any action for replacement of the said defective meter and it is still existing as it appears from the statement of the complainant/appellant. In case of allegation of defective meter, the bill dispute ought to have referred to the Electrical Inspector, Government of West Bengal for adjudication of the dispute and pending decision of the dispute by the Electrical Inspector, Electricity Board cannot issue supplementary bills or threatened disconnection of supply of electricity, as per principle laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.P.E.B., and Others v. Smt. Basanti Bai, reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 71. But the learned Trial Forum, Bankura relying on the report of Sri G.L. Guin, the Senior Station Superintendent, Bishnupur Group Electric Supply has observed that the complainant/appellant has consumed 180 units per month as against 208 units per month as per report of said Sri. G.L. Guin, the Senior Station Superintendent, Bishnupur Group Electric Supply. The said Station Superintendent based his report on the number of points found in the switch board and arrived at his final report of monthly consumption of 208s unit of electricity as per number of points fixed on the switch board, although the complainant/appellant did not use so many points fixed on the switch board but she made only future provisions and no such cogent proofs about user of those points were there except one loose wire.

In the circumstances, the report of the Senior Station Superintendent is entirely based on surmise and conjectures and drawing up bill on the basis of said baseless and unreasonable report is high handed, biased and illegal. The learned Forum below relying in the said fictitious report submitted by the Senior Station Superintendent fixed consumption of the complainant/ appellant at 180 units which cannot be accepted by us.

WE hold that the opposite party/respondent having known about the defective meter since July, 1991 lying and installed at the premises of the complainant has not taken any steps to replace the said defective meter even in the face of repeated representations given for replacement of the said defective meter by the complainant/appellant. WE further hold that the report submitted by the Station Superintendent, Bishnupur Group Electric Supply is bias, baseless and arbitrary and cannot be relied upon. The actions on the part of the opposite party/respondent are serious negligence and deficiency in service, particularly for failure on its part to replace the defective meter admittedly to have been lying in the premises of the complainant/ appellant since July, 1991. We accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, Bankura in P.C. No. 19 of 1992 and direct the opposite party/respondent to replace the defective meter within 7 days forthwith of the communication of this order and on the basis of aforesaid consumption to be recorded in the accurate meter for six months after replacement of the same. The disputed bill since July, 1991 till now be decided accordingly. In the meantime the complainant/appellant shall go on paying Rs.50/- per month until the dispute is decided on the basis of the average consumption of the accurate meter to be replaced by the opposite party/ respondent and the opposite party/respondent shall maintain the supply line of the complainant/appellant without any disturbance.

WE award compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for harassment and mental pain caused to the complainant/appellant for such a long period for failure to replace the defective meter by the opposite party/respondent. There will be no order as to the cost. Mr. Justice A.K. Bhattacharjee, President. The petition of complaint filed before the District Forum shows that it is an allegation of defective meter. I, therefore, agree that the case has been wrongly decided by the Forum and the appeal must be allowed.

IT should, however, be noted that disputes arising out of an allegation of incorrect meter shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Under Sub-section (6) of the said section where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided upon application of either party by an Electrical Inspector and the opinion of the said Inspector as whether the meter is correct or not shall be binding on the parties as per provisions of the said sub-section. The aforesaid sub-section further provides that unless the correctness of the meter is tested as provided therein the metered consumption shall, in the absence of fraud, be the conclusive proof of the quantity of electricity consumed by a consumer.

IN this case the dispute could have been referred to the Electrical INspector by the complainant himself as the licensee did not take such a step. Unless and until the meter is found to be incorrect by the relevant technical authority, it cannot be held that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the licensee. It would be improper to direct the licensee to remove the meter or to pay compensation until the meter is tested by the Electrical INspector. It is pertinent to mention here that the process of testing the meter should be undertaken immediately after the meter is suspected to be incorrect as the maximum period for which the consumption of electricity shall be assessed in respect of an incorrect meter is six months. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the District Forum, Bankura is set aside. The dispute regarding the alleged defective meter be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector for decision under Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 within a period of one month from such reference. The C.E.I, is also directed to make arrangement for the replacement of the alleged incorrect meter and fix the quantity of electricity consumed by the complainant during the entire period of dispute. Appeal allowed.