H.S.E.B., REWARI vs RAM SINGH

THE Haryana State Electricity Board appeals against the order of the District Forum, Rewari granting marginal relief in the recalculation of electricity charges in favour of the respondent.

THE respondent holds an electric connection for his tubewell and his primal grievance was against the levy of inflated and excessive electricity charge levied upon him, including penalty amount of Rs. 7,125/-. . On notice being issued the appellants took up the stand that the sanction for the tube-well connection was of 5 H.P. only. However, when the Junior Engineer visited the premises and checked the same on 11-11-1992 he found the tubewell motor of 7.5 HP pump installed threat and another motor of 2 HP for the working of a Flour mill. He also found that the meter was burnt and the respondent was taking electricity directly from the Pole and for this alleged theft penalty was rightly imposed as also enhanced charges for the alleged over load. The District Forum found that the complainant had obtained the connection for 7 HP and by inadvertence the ledger entries mentioned the same as 5 HP connection. It further found that since the meter of the complainant had been burnt, he had applied for the replacement thereof and also deposited requisite amount but there being no response to the same, the Consumer was compelled to have a direct connection. The bills for electricity charge were consequently directed to be modified accordingly.

Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel for the appellant attempted to assail the finding of the District Forum that the original sanction was for 7 H.P. However, even when pressed he could show no proof whatsoever that the application for the connection was for 5 HP or the sanction letter thereof was for the said H.P. only. It was conceded that the original application and the relevant sanction are un-traceable. That being so, it is somewhat obvious that there is no ground for assailing the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum. The respondent appearing in person had categorically taken the stand that he was utilising the electricity meter of only the sanctioned H.P. and not more. The District Forum''s findings on that scope have consequently to be affirmed.

REPELLED on his primal submission, Mr. Mittal had then contended that the respondent was liable for penalty and enhanced charges for the direct connection made by him. Herein what is significant is the fact that way back on November 1, 1990, the respondent had expressly applied for the replacement of the meter and also deposited the requisite amount. However, even after a period of two years this request was at no stage acceded to. Mr. Mittal had to concede that because of the paucity of meters, the same could not be supplied and in fact it was the firm stand of the respondent in person, that even upto now no meter replacement had been made. In such a situation, it would be almost impossible for an agricultural consumer who depends for his bread and butter on the cultivation of his land to not use his tubewell for irrigation. The appellants are in patent default for not supplying the meter even after having received the requisite fees for more than 2 years. In this context, the District Forum was amply right that the alleged direct connection does not amount to theft which obviously includes an element of dishonesty or of causing of wrongful loss. In view of the reasons recorded above, this appeal is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 500/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.