HARJIT BROS. vs HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

WHETHER the Haryana State Electricity Board would be guilty of a deficiency in service for strictly adhering to the terms of Instruction No. 115 of their Sales Manual for calculating the electricity charges for a dead or burnt meter? This indeed is the solitary core question in this complaint.

THE facts merit notice with relevance to the issue aforesaid. M/s. Harjit Brothers-complainants admittedly are running a factory in Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon which originally had a sanctioned electricity connection for 98 KW only. It was their case that they had made an application for the extension of the load under the voluntary disclosure scheme for enhancing the same to 147.250 KW and installed the necessary equipment therefor in the year 198889. However the said enhancement was admittedly not granted to the complainants allegedly on the pretext or the other. On the 23rd of September, 1990 the meter of the complainants was burnt and it was the case that they requested the Sub Divisional Officer to replace the same but no orders were issued in this regard by the authorities. THE complainants thereafter approached the Superintending Engineer vide Annexure P-2, who is said to have issued the necessary instructions to meet the grievance of the consumer by his letter Annexure P-3. It is common ground that it was only on the 28th of December, 1991 that a new meter was replaced and installed on the premises. It is then the case that for the interregnum when the meter was not working adhoc bills were raised against the complainant which they seemed to have willingly paid. It is. however pleaded that they were assured that the excess, if any would be adjusted in the future bills. It is alleged that after the installation of the new meter, average billing of electricity came to Rs. 18,085/- per month despite the fact that the tariff had been enhanced by 8 paise per unit. This average was sought to be worked out on the basis of the bills for 6 months beginning from the 25th of February, 1992 to the 17th of July, 1992. The grievance is that the complainants had paid the electricity bills for the previous 15 months from the 23rd of September, 1990 to the 27th of December, 1991 by an excess amount of Rs. 1,24,400/-. On the basis of some interesting figure work the claim is that the difference of the amount with interest to the tune of Rs. 2,12,122/ - with future interest of 24% be refunded to the complainant.

In the written statement filed by the opposite parties, three preliminary objections were raised to which reference now becomes unnecessary, because they were disposed of and rejected by a separate speaking order dated the 30th of August, 1993. On merits the firm stand was that the complainant had extended the sanctioned load of 98.733K.W. to 147.250 K.W. without any authorisation illegally. However, he had declared the load under the voluntary Disclosure Scheme in June 1988. It was pointed out that the burning of the meter had been occasioned by the unauthorised enhancement of the load, which had put pressure on the electrical system. In accordance with the usual practice, the complainants were asked to purchase their own meter because these were not in stock and the delay in the installation of the meter is squarely laid at the door of the complainants. The new meter was installed as soon as the complainants had purchased and presented the same. For the relevant period, the billing was regularly made on the basis of the average consumption of the previous six months and these were paid by the complainants without protest or objection. The said bills are firmly pleaded to be neither adhoc nor inflated and it is the case that the complainants would be estopped from challenging the same and no assurance was or in the circumstances could possibly be'' given that any adjustment would be made on the basis of the bills likely to be raised in future. It is further pointed out that the subsequent consumption after the installation of the meter was low because the complainants could not run their factory normally because of the non-availability of raw material and this had been so stated by Sh. Sushil Kumar, a representative of the complainants themselves on an enquiry by the Sub Divisional Officer. In the end the firm stand is that billing was done in accordance with the Instruction No. 115 on the basis of the average consumption for the previous six months and is, therefore, perfectly in order.

IN support of their case, the complainants originally rested themselves content with the affidavit of Sh. Harjit Singh, a partner of the firm and later with the affidavit testimony of Mr. M.M. Bahl. Both of them were cross-examined at some length on behalf of the opposite party, which made sizeable dents in the complainant''s case. Reliance was placed on the documentary evidence of Annexures P-4 to P-8. IN rebuttal the opposite party relied on the affidavit testimony of Sh. Satish C. Gupta, Executive Engineer and Sh. V.B. Kumar, Sub Divisional Officer. Both of them were cross-examined on behalf of the complainants without eliciting anything meaningful in their favour. Reliance was placed on the unchallenged documentary evidence of RW1/1 to RWl/6 and in particular on INstruction No. 115 of the Sales Manual in RW1/3. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, the learned Counsel for the complainant was on a weak wicket in projecting his primal stand that the computation of the electricity consumption from 23rd of December, 1990 to 27th of December, 1991 should be made on the basis of future bills commencing from February 1992 to July 1992. It was the submission that the bills for the disputed period raised by the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) were only adhoc in nature and were excessive when viewed in the context of the subsequent billing of nearly two years from the date of the burning of the meter. It was the plea that Instruction No. 115 did not preclude the calculation on basis of the future bills.

ON the other hand Mrs. Dogra on behalf of the opposite party firmly pinned herself on Instruction No. 115 and contended that a billing in accordance therewith cannot possibly be deemed as a deficiency in service within the consumer jurisdiction. Since the whole case herein must necessarily turn on the statutory Instruction No. 115, the relevant contents thereof may be noticed in extenso at the very out-set; "Instruction No. 115; Adjustment of Consumers'' Account if Meter is Found Defective by a Board Employee; Following procedure should be adopted whenever an energy meter on the premises of a consumer is found to be defective by Boards'' employee; (a) Dead Stop or Burnt Meter: On receipt of a report regarding a meter becoming dead stop or burnt, it should be immediately replaced and necessary enquiry conducted. The meter alongwith the report should be forwarded to XEN M & T for further action. So far as charging the consumer for the period the meter remained in operative is concerned, some adhoc charges based on the average consumption of the last 3 to 6 months or the average of the same months of the preceding year, whichever seems to be reasonable should be levied. It may be worthwhile if the field staff ensures through personal enquiries from the neighbours etc. that there was no special occasion like marriage etc. for the consumer to exceed the normal consumption during the period. In such an eventuality the consumer should also be billed for such probable consumption as determined by the field staff."

Now a plain reading of the aforesaid instruction would show that it visualises the average consumption for a dead slow or burnt meter on the basis of the previous consumption only for three to six months or even of the preceding year whichever seems to be reasonable. It does not in the least talk of any average of future bills.

BEFORE adverting in greater detail to the impact of Instruction No. 115, the virtually established background of the case merits highlighting. It is common ground that the original sanctioned load of the complainant was only 98 K.W. without any previous. sanction and obviously unauthorisedly if not illegaly, the same was enhanced to 147.250 K.W. This illegality seems to have been papered over by the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme of which the complainants could take advantage. However, there is merit in the Board''s stand that the meter of the complainants got burnt by the unauthorised enhancing of the load putting pressure on the system. The complainants have thus only themselves to blame for the damage or burning of the said meter.

IT is again established that on information being lodged with the officials of the Board, the complainants were categorically informed that there was a paucity of meters in stock and in accordance with prevailing practice, they were asked to purchase their own meter and have it installed after completing the necessary formalities. IT is the firm case of the opposite party that as soon as the purchased meter was presented, it was installed without any undue delay. IT would appear on the present record that the intervals betwixt the burning and placing of the new meter, if somewhat elongated is primarily due to the complainants own fault. Once that is so, the relevant provision of Instruction No. 115 with regard to a burnt meter at once comes into play. It deserve highlighting that there is no dispute that the said Instruction in the Sales Manual is a well published one and under the terms and conditions of electricity supply to consumer, the Sales Manual is squarely applicable. It bears repetition that this binding Instruction clearly visualises the computation of the average consumption on the basis of either the previous three to six months, or even of a year earlier. In the very nature of things it does not visualise any future bills or striking an average, therefor. Consequently, in assessing the consumption for the interregnum, the Board was acting perfectly in accord with both the letter and spirit of the agreement betwixt the parties. Even otherwise it looks somewhat farcical in the present context that the average should be struck on the basis of a conjectural billing in the future. To concretise, the Board had to forward the bills for consumption of energy to the complainants for the month of October, November and December onwards of 1990. Obviously, it cannot wait for a year and quarter for the future installation of the meter when produced by the complainant and thereafter striking an average of six months to assess a consumption nearly two years earlier. Such a stand on the part of the complainants appears to us as not only untenable, but somewhat farcical.

Yet again, it is common ground that the complainants had paid the bills for well-nigh 15 months raised against them without demur and any recorded protest. It is the opposite party''s case that after the installation of the new meter, the consumption had come down because the factory could not run fully because of the paucity of raw materials. It would seem that the claim to have the previous billing on the average of future consumption was a pure after thought, when the complainants found that their consumption of electricity had come down for collateral reasons subsequently.

APART from the inherent weaknesses in the complainant''s case, one has to remind oneself that we are within the confines of the consumer jurisdiction. The gut question is whether there has been any deficiency in the services extended out by the Board. It is not in dispute that under the conditions of supply the Sales Manual of the Board is obviously applicable. Can it, therefore, be possibly said that in adhering to the letter and spirit of Instruction No. 115, the Board is in any way violating the terms of the supply of electricity? The answer to that question appears to us as being obviously in the negative. In the light of the somewhat exhaustive discussion, it must be held in answer to the question posed at the out-set that the Haryana State Electricity Board cannot be deemed to be guilty of a deficiency in service for strictly adhering to the statutory Instruction No. 115 of their Sales Manual for computing the electricity charges for a burnt meter.

ONCE it is held as above, it would & logically follow that the complainants herein do not have any valid grievance at all within the consumer jurisdiction at least. The Board was entitled and indeed eminently right in calculating the charges on the basis of the previous average of six months. The complainants willingly paid the same, without in any way raising a written objection at that stage. It would, therefore, not lie in the complainant''s mouth to claim after the passage of nearly two years from the original burning of the meter in September, 1990 for an alleged refund with interest and costs on the basis of subsequent bills presumably at a lower level because of the unavailability of the raw material. For the fore-going reasons, this complaint must fail and is hereby dismissed. Nevertheless, we decline to burden the complainants with any costs primarily due to their consumer status. Complaint dismissed.