HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs JAWAHAR LAL SINGLA

THIS appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Jind directing the refund of the excess amount wrongly charged from the respondent with interest @ 18 per cent thereon. In view of the somewhat limited challenge to the order under appeal, it suffices to notice the facts with relative brevity.

THE case set up by the complainant-respondent was that he was a consumer of the appellant- board with regard to his domestic connection No. M1-211 and had throughout been regularly depositing the amount of the bills levied against him. However, to his surprise he received an additional bill of Rs. 2,764.70 paise, payment whereof was directed to be made on or before the 14th of August, 1989. On his protestations the appellants gave an assurance that a challenge meter would be installed at his premises and if the comparison of the reading of consumption of units of the two meters showed any excess billing, the excess charges would be refunded. Yet again, he received another bill for a sum of Rs. 2,220.85 paise which was to be paid on the 16th of October, 1989 and on his objection a similar assurance was given. Subsequently some- what similar demands were made from the complainant is forcing him to knock at the door of the District Forum with the prayer that the excess amount of Rs. 3,936.15 paise alongwith interest be got refunded to him. On notice being issued to the appellants, the case set up was that the respondent had earlier been fully satisfied with the electricity charges levied against him. However, he had later got installed an electricity meter of 25 Amp. with three phases having a sanctioned load of 4.677 KW which continued to work correctly working upto March, 1987. Thereafter, when the Audit Party of the H.S.E.B. inspected the record in June, 1989, it concluded that the reading of the aforesaid meter from the month of April, 1987 to May, 1989 was extremely low. Consequently considering the average of the consumption of two years fresh bills were prepared after adjusting the previous amount paid by him and a sum of Rs. 2,424.50 paise was found due against him which the complainant was compelled to pay in three instalments. On the 2nd of June, 1989, a new meter had been installed at his premises and payments were made according to the consumption recorded by it.

The District Forum on the basis of the pleadings itself came to the conclusion that the charging of the average amount in the bills of the complainant by the respondent was not justified unless it was established that he had consumed move units of electricity than shown in those bills, because the complainant cannot be held liable for the fault of the meter which should have been checked and replaced by the respondents. It further took the view that the complaint was not barred by time.

MR. Sudhir Nehra, the learned Counsel for the appellant had forcefully pressed the appeal on the issue of limitation. It was contended that the respondent either under duress or otherwise had made the challenged payments in 1989 and was therefore guilty of gross laches in presenting the complaint after nearly three years. It was submitted that the complaint should be dismissed either on the technical ground of limitation or in any case because of unexplained delay in preferring the same. We are unable to find any modicum of merit in the submission afore said. The clear cut case of the respondent was that he had made the payments on and a firm assurance by the appellants that if subsequent checking and metering indicated that the billing was excessive the same would either be refunded or waived. Once that is so it is patent that the respondent is in no way estopped from assailing an unauthorised levy by the appellant-board. It is somewhat elementary that it is not easy for a consumer to take up cudgits against the monopolistic supply of energy by the Board and the latter''s demands have consequently to be acceded to, on the pain or risk of disconnection of electricity. There- fore, the mere fact of the respondent having deposited the unauthorised electricity charges and having waited for redress at the hands of the Board in on way miliates against his case Even otherwise the District Forum has rightly noticed that the first impugned bill was itself dated the 14th of August, 1989 and the full or part payment against the same was subsequent thereto. The complaint was however, filed well within time on the 3rd of July, 1992 which was within the statutory period of three years. In the present case when the respondent is within the letter of the law and the prescribed period of limitation, he cannot be easily non-suited on the ground of either of laches or estoppel. The primal submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants, therefore must fail.

LASTLY, it was argued that herein the Audit Party of the Board had reasonable ground to suspect that the consumption of the respondent was low and therefore, entitled to make an assessment on the basis of average consumption of two years. The aforesaid submission in our view plainly merits rejection. It is common ground that herein the appellant board had itself been submitting the bills for electricity charges from April, 1987 to May, 1989 which were duly paid within time. For well nigh two years, the Board raised not a hint of a suggestion of any wrong metering or any malpractice or low consumption. It is somewhat elementary that mere low consumption by itself is not any infraction of the Board''s rules and regulations and may be due to a wide variety of reasons including the non-availing of the electric energy. Herein, the curious case set up is that more than two years after the original billing of March, 1987 onwards an Audit Party on the ground of suspicious had chosen to levy additional bills on the arbitrary basis i.e. average consumption of two years. The District Forum rightly noticed that the primal responsibility of the correct metering of electrical energy lies on the Board and its equipment unless tampering or other malpractice is established. It seems right in its view that the respondent cannot be held liable for the fault of the meterif any and it is for the appellant- Board to either have checked the same or replaced if it was defective. In any case, Mr. Nehra when pointedly asked to cite Chapter and verse for levying additional charges on the ground of alleged low consumption, was unable to do so. It was fairly conceded that he could cite no provision which in terms was attracted and which authorises the levying of additional charges on the basis of averages merely on the ground because the consumption of electricity was allegedly low in view of the Board officials. The District Forum was right in its view that unless it is established that the complainant bad either tampered or consumed more electricity than shown in the bills, he cannot be arbitrarily burdened with additional charges. The second submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants therefore, must be rejected. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at the figure of Rs. 200/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.