GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD vs R.P.ENGINEERING

BY way of this appeal the original opponent Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB for short) seeks to challenge the order dated 27th January, 2004 rendered by the learned Jamnagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 167/2003.

IT was the complainant''s case before the learned Forum that initially the complainant had taken electricity connection with 2 H.P. Since his business developed connected load was raised to 20 H.P. However, the opponent GEB did not change the old meter though complainant requested time and again for new meter. Hence the meter in question got burnt and the personnel of the opponent GEB had taken away the meter. Complainant thereafter came to know by letter dated 1st July, 1996 that complainant was charged with theft of electricity and was penalised by issuing bill for Rs. 61,000. IT was the complainant''s case that actually the meter got burnt on account of overload of electricity supply and due to increase in sanctioned load. IT was the complainant''s case that complainant was not given any opportunity of being heard before the complainant had to face the charge of theft of electricity. Complainant filed appeal before the Appellate Committee of the opponent GEB against the aforesaid bill of Rs. 61,000. That appeal came to be decided on 11.9.1997 and the bill was reduced to Rs. 47,397.60. With a view to preserve the electricity connection from being cut off by the opponent GEB complainant paid the amount subject to the complainant''s contentions. Complainant, therefore, approached the learned Forum for refund of the amount paid by the complainant as per the decision of the Appellate Committee.

Initially the matter was decided by the learned Forum on 30th October, 2001 in absence of the opponent GEB who had filed Appeal No. 704/2001 before this Commission. As per the decision rendered on 29th March, 2003 by this Commission the matter was remanded to the learned Forum by imposing cost of Rs. 2,000 on the opponent GEB. After the matter was remanded opponent GEB filed affidavit of the concerned officer. After hearing the parties learned Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opponent GEB in not replacing the old meter with new meter as ordinarily new meter has to be installed on account of change in the load. Learned Forum also came to the conclusion that the plastic seals in the meter would also be affected as the meter was old. Same was the conclusion with regard to parts of the seal coming out from the meter. Learned Forum, therefore, came to the conclusion that tampering of the meter could not be inferred by the opponent GEB. Learned Forum, therefore, proceeded to direct refund of the amount of Rs. 47,397.60 with interest @ 15% p.a. by way of adjustment of the amount in the future bill and cost quantified at Rs. 1,500. Opponent GEB has subjected this order to challenge in this appeal.

WE have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the opponent GEB, now appellant before us. No one is present for the respondent now, the original complainant. We have gone through the impugned order. In our considered opinion learned Forum failed to take notice of the order passed by the Appellate Committee. It is now settled proposition of law that the Forum cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the Appellate Committee. The case of the complainant with regard to the old meter was very much before the Appellate Committee. The Appellate Committee considered the same and passed the order reducing the amount of penalty bill by following appropriate formula. This is one part of the present case.

IT has been submitted that the complainant had filed writ petition before the Hon''ble High Court of Gujarat. That was Special Civil Application No. 7863/98. Decision of the Appellate Committee was challenged in the said writ petition. Hon''ble High Court dismissed the same by order dated 24th March, 2000. Complainant failed to point out before the learned Forum about complainant''s writ petition having been dismissed for non-prosecution. IT was not the case of the complainant that he allowed dismissal with a view to take other remedy. Bearing in mind all these circumstances of the present case this appeal is required to be allowed. Following order is, therefore, passed: Impugned order dated 27th January, 2004 rendered by the learned Jamnagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 167/2003 is hereby set aside. Complaint bearing No. 167/2003 is dismissed. This appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to cost throughout. Appeal allowed.