H.S. UPADHYAYA vs Asst. Executive Engineer

THESE two appeals by the complainant are directed against the common order dated 27.4.1993 passed by the District Forum, Mangalore, in Complaint Nos. CPA/998/90-91 and CPA/DK/65/91-92, dismissing the complaints.

THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows : In both the complaints the complainant was one and the same and the opposite parties are also one and the same. THE District Forum disposed of the complaints by a common order. THE electrical installation was serviced to the residence of the complainant on 26.10.1983. It was of two KV. Subsequently on 2.11.1983 a meter was fixed to the said installation. THE opposite parties did not take meter reading for a long time. It was only on 9.1.1986 the meter reading was taken. In the meanwhile, the complainant regularly used to pay the charges at 140 units per month i.e., at the rate of 70 units per K.V. THE opposite parties issued calculation- sheet on 14.9.1990 as per Ex. C.l and demanded payment of a sum of Rs. 5,972/- from the complainant towards arrears of electricity consumed by the complainant. THE complainant disputed this calculation sheet and made representation to the opposite parties. When he failed to get relief in this regard, filed the complaint i.e., Complaint No. CPA/998/90-91 seeking to quash the said calculation sheet Ex. C.l. While the proceedings were so pending, the opposite parties disconnected the power supply on the ground that the complainant failed to pay the arrears as demanded under Ex. C.l. THEreafter, the complainant filed Complaint CPA/DK/65/91-92 seeking to restore the power supply to the installation of the complainant. The opposite parties filed their version and admitted the fact that the installation was serviced on 26.10.1983 and the meter was fixed on 2.11.1983. It also admitted the fact that it was only in the month of January, 1986 that for the first time a meter reading was taken. It further averred that on the basis of that meter reading a calculation sheet as per Ex. C.1 was prepared and arrear of a sum of Rs. 5,972/- was claimed from the complainant. It also admitted the fact that the complainant was making payment regularly at the rate of 70 units per K.V. per month. The opposite parties on the basis of these averments, sought the complaints to be dismissed.

During enquiry the complainant examined himself as C.W. 1 and other two witnesses as CWs. 2 and 3. The opposite parties examined a Senior Assistant as R.W. 1.

THE District Forum, appreciating this material placed on record by the parties, held no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and in that view, dismissed the complaint. We have called for the records and received. We have also heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

IT is not disputed that the electrical installation to the residence of the complainant was serviced on 26.10.1983 and the meter was fixed on 2.11.1983. IT is also not disputed that the meter reading was taken only on 9.1.1986. IT is also not disputed that till then the complainant was making payment of electrical charges at the rate of 70 units per K.V. i.e., 140 units per month. IT was only in the month of November, 1987 the complainant was required to pay a further sum of Rs. 5,972/- towards arrears of electrical charges as per Ex. C.l. Ex. C.l is stated to be a calculation sheet, xerox copy of which has been marked as Ex. C.l. This calculation sheet does not make out what is the basis for this calculation; when the opposite parties admit this fact that the meter was fixed on 2.11.1983 and it was subsequently on 9.1.1986 the meter reading was taken. The calculation sheet Ex. C.l shows different readings on different dates in the month of November 1983; October 1984; October 1985; January 1986; March 1986; April, May and September, 1987 and also October and November, 1987. The District Forum while considering this document Ex. C.l at para 10 of its order has observed thus : "10. The correspondence between the complainant and the 3rd opposite party coupled with the averments made in the complaints suggest that the only grievance of complainant, is that Ex. C.l was not intelligible enough. As stated earlier it is true there are discrepancies in Ex. C.l regarding the dates and readings of the meter. Admittedly the initial reading of the meter fixed on 2.11.1983 was 4255. But in Ex. C.l, this reading of 4255 has been shown against 9.11.1983 instead of against 2.11.1983. Apparently it is a mistake as meter reading of 4338 units must have been on 9.11.1983. Similar mistakes are found in this calculation sheet which are capable of being clarified by a careful scrutiny of the same. Since the complainant has not seriously challenged the readings of the meter, we are inclined to hold as per the actual meter readings the complainant is still liable to pay Rs. 5972/- as the electricity charges for 12664 units. When that being the case there was no justification for the complainant to have not paid this just claim made by the opposite party."

Therefore, it is clear that there are several discrepencies in the said document Ex. C.1 and it is very difficult to base our finding on such a document. The District Forum while considering this document has further observed thus : "...... Though in the complaint the complainant had disputed this claim regarding the meter having completed two billing cycles, he has not seriously disputed the readings of meters as found in Ex. C.l. It is necessary to state at this stage that the complainant being an educated person must have been aware of the number of units consumed by him in his installation every month since admittedly the said meter was recording correctly the consumption of power. There is no explanation offered by the complainant why he did not make a note regarding the number of units consumed every month as disclosed in the meter. It appears that the complainant taking undue advantage of the omission of the opposite party in not recording the readings of the meter right from 2.11.1983 has come up with this complaint contending that he is not liable to pay the arrears as (not) demanded in Ex. C.l."

THIS reasoning adopted by the District Forum is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. It is not the duty of the consumer to record the readings of the meter.

THE National Commission considered this aspect of the matter in Y.N. Gupta v. D.E.S.U., I (1993) CPJ 25 (NC), has held as under : "It is the duty and obligation of the Licensee to maintain and check the meter." It is not the duty of the complainant, even though he may be an educated man, to check the meter and take its readings. So the finding recorded by the District Forum is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. It is evident from this material on record that the services rendered by the opposite parties were clearly deficient in nature. Having regard to these facts, it is clear that the opposite parties were not justified in claiming a sum of Rs. 5,972/- alleging to be the arrears under Ex. C.l from the complainant. So we hold and record that the complainant is not liable to pay the said sum of Rs. 5,972/- as demanded by the opposite parties under Ex. C.l.

Having regard to these facts, we hold that the opposite parties - K.E.B. were not justified in disconnecting the power supply to the installation of the complainant on the ground of non-payment of alleged arrears by the complainant.

IN the result, therefore, these appeals are allowed. The order of the District Forum, Mangalore recorded in Complaint No. CPA/ 998/90-91 and in Complaint No. CPA/DK/65/ 91-92 are set aside and both the appeals are allowed. The opposite parties - K.E.B. are directed to restore the electric supply to the installation of the complainant (R.R. No. PRL. 482 : 4 : 64) within a period of one month from this date. The calculation sheet, Ex. C.l under which a sum of Rs. 5,972/- is sought from the complainant alleging to be the arrears of electrical charges is set aside. The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs in this proceeding. Appeals allowed. _______________