HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs N.C. JINDAL CHARITABLE TRUST

THE Haryana State Electricity Board has come up in appeal against the order dated 5th May, 1994 of the learned District Forum, Hissar, by which the demand made by the H.S.E.B. for 7624 units per month has been quashed.

COMPLAINANT is a Trust and is running a hospital at Hissar and the electricity is being supplied to the housing colony, for which the Trust has been paying the bills. In September, 1992 since the bill received from the H.S.E.B. was on the higher side, the same was challenged by the COMPLAINANT on the ground that it was not based on actual consumption and had been prepared on unilateral basis. In the written statement filed by the H.S.E.B.; that the bill was correctly prepared and issued since the meter was found dead stop, the amount was calculated and charged under sundry item, which the COMPLAINANT was duty bound to pay. Learned District Forum after going into the matter and taking into consideration the consumption chart maintained by the H.S.E.B., came to the conclusion that there was consumption of 3200 units in April, 1991, whereas it was 3792 in August, 1991 and 3210 in December, 1992 that is why the Opposite Party-Board had charged 3000 units only per month on average charges from October, 1991 to April, 1992. On that basis learned District Forum concluded that any further demand was without notice to the Complainant and being unilateral deserves to be quashed. Consequently, the complaint was accepted and the demand in question was quashed. Reliance was also placed by the learned District Forum on the decision of this Commission reported as 1992 (2) C.P.C. 422, H.S.E.B. v. Sita Ram.

Before us Mr. Bhupinder Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the entire approach of the learned District Forum was erroneous inasmuch as it was not a case of non-supply of electricity at any stage. But from the record, it was evident that the average consumption of the corresponding period during the last 12 months was 7624 units. Therefore, the H.S.E.B. was justified in calculating the consumption and making the payment by taking 7624 units per month as the consumption in the bill of September, 1992 as sundry charges. Learned Counsel for the appellant further pleaded that from the record it was clear that reasonable and adequate opportunity was duly afforded to the Complainant and as such the finding of the learned District Forum on that account was also contrary to the facts.

ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has reiterated his submission as made before the District Forum and has supported the impugned order on that basis. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we find that the view taken by the learned District Forum was patently erroneous. Admittedly, there was no stoppage or cut in the supply of electricity to the Complainant''s housing colony and other buildings etc., for which the bill was to be paid. When the meter had come to a dead stop, the average consumption was the only basis to be taken for the purpose of calculation and the same method was rightly resorted to by the H.S.E.B. Therefore, the demand made was strictly on the basis of the average consumption for the period in question during the last 12 months. We do not find anything wrong in it. So far as the reliance placed by the learned District on the decision in case H.S.E.B. v. Sita Ram (supra), we find the same to be misplaced. In the aforesaid case, "there was a clear deficiency in service as the factory was found working despite a power cut and it was disconnected on the charge of theft of electricity and a penalty of Rs. 66,585/- was imposed on the Complainant, which was a clear violation of conditions of supply of electricity. The facts and circumstances of the present case are wholly different with the facts of the case reported above. Consequently, we do not find any legal infirmity in the demand made by the H.S.E.B. and as such the impugned order is wholly untenable in law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order of the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.