J.P.KHANGARE vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.S.E.B.

THIS complainant has been filed by the consumer of electricity alleging the deficiency in the service of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. Shortly stated the facts are that the complainant is the owner of a hotel named ''Sai Kripa''. The hotel was established on 1.5.87. However, it was functioning properly from March, 1990. The complainant has hired the services of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) for the supply of electricity through meter No. 190819 having Consumer No. 1412522. The complainant alleged that his regular bills of electricity from the beginning were within a range of Rs. 2,002/- to Rs. 4,441/- for a billing period of two months. The complainant further alleged that till November, 1990, the complainant paid the regular bills. According to complainant, on 8.11.90, he was served with a notice by the M.S.E.B. alleging that the seal of the meter was loose and the meter was running slow and that he was directed to take a proper care of the meter. The said meter was changed and new meter No. T. 93055 was installed. The complainant further stated that on 8.1.91 the complainant received a bill for Rs. 4,95,101.51. The complainant further alleged that the M.S.E.B. also approached the District Court at Thane and filed caveat with a view to preventing the complainant to approach that Court in case of disconnection of electricity supply. The complainant states that due to fear of disconnection resulting in the loss of business, he agreed to deposit Rs. 3,30,000/- with M.S.E.B. The complainant, therefore, alleges that he was given threats of disconnection for the payment of the bill which was time barred as being beyond six months period. The complainant further alleged that despite his depositing the excessive claim of electrical bill, the dispute was not referred to Electrical Inspector for decision and the M.S.E.B. continued to collect illegally the bills from the complainant under threats of disconnection. The complainant, therefore, prayed for stay of recovery and disconnection.

THE opposite party filed its written version dated 18.10.91 and stated that the complainant agreed to make the payment of the bill in question and, therefore, the M.S.E.B. did not proceed to file a criminal case against the complainant. According to the M.S.E.B., the complainant practised fraud in tampering with the electricity meter and, therefore, the bill was legally raised taking into consideration the consumption of the complainant. Both the parties filed their respective documents. We also heard the complainant, through Shri Chawankar, Advocate and opposite party by Shri Upadhye, Advocate.

It is found from the facts placed before us that the hotel premises of the complainant were inspected by the staff of the M.S.E.B. on 6.11.90. A panchnama was drawn and it was found that the meter supplied by M.S.E.B. to complainant was tampered with and, therefore, it was replaced by a new meter. In a notice dated 6.11.90, addressed to the complainant, by the Deputy Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B., the complainant was informed that in case, any such irregularities were observed in future, civil and criminal action would be taken against the complainant. It was also conveyed that after testing of the meter past bills would be revised with respective effects. In another letter dated 8.1.91, the Executive Engineer of the M.S.E.B. informed the complainant that the electricity charges were levied for the period from 12.1.88 to 12.11.90. In another letter dated 15.1.91, the complainant was informed about the filing of caveat in the Civil Court at Thane. In the application for caveat, it is alleged that the complainant had committed theft of electrical energy by tampering with the seal of the meter and illegally tampering the meter to show less consumption and, therefore, M.S.E.B. had prepared the bill for Rs. 4,95,101.51 from December, 87 to October, 90. It seems that the complainant was under pressure and agreed to make payment by instalment and actually made some payments.

ON the basis of the aforesaid material it is evident that the complainant was served with a bill for a period from 1987 to November, 1990 by calculating the likely use of electricity by the complainant. No basis or date to arrive at the calculation to assess the total figure of Rs. 4,95,101.51 has been shown by the opposite party. It is only on the assumption that this could be the bill for the consumption made by the complainant that the bill in question has been worked out. It is very difficult for us to believe the figure of consumption of electricity by the complainant in absence of convincing evidence. No testing report of the meter in question has been placed before this Commission indicating that it was defective, except the panchanama and the notice mentioned above. In this complaint, the complainant has disputed the correctness of the electricity bill in question under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, in case of a dispute between the consumer and the electrical undertaking reference has to be made to the Electrical Inspector to decide the dispute. His decision is binding on both the parties. We fail to understand as to why when such a mechanism was available the M.S.E.B. did not refer the dispute for decision to the Electrical Inspector, particularly when the bill was disputed by the consumer? We also fail to understand when it is the case of the M.S.E.B. that the complainant has committed criminal offence of theft, why suitable action was not taken against him under the existing provisions of law? We find in this complaint that the M.S.E.B instead of resorting to legal methods to resolve a dispute as regards the consumption of electricity by a consumer adopted a shortcut method by putting the consumer under the threat of disconnection of his electricity connection to recover the disputed electricity dues. In our view, the action on the part of the M.S.E.B. amounts to deficiency in the service. The Indian Electricity Act as well as the Rules framed there under are sufficient to take care of such a situation and there was no necessity for the administration of the M.S.E.B. to adopt coercive methods to deal with the consumer who was in arrears of the electricity dues. The M.S.E.B. can file a civil suit for the recovery of electricity dues and also can refuse the customer to supply the electricity if he is found in arrears. In the instant case, the consumer has fully proved his allegations that the service of the opposite party M.S.E.B. was having several deficiencies namely serving a time barred defective bill and recovery of dues of electricity under threats and adopting illegal and reprehensible methods for the recovery of the electricity bill when lawful methods are provided by Rules. In our view, non-performance of legal procedure as per rules and regulations which are required to be observed by M.S.E.B. in case of recovery of disputed electric dues amounts to deficiency in the service of the M.S.E.B. Under these circumstances we allow this complaint and direct the M.S.E.B. to refer the dispute of electricity dues for the decision of the Government. Electrical Inspector having jurisdiction over the area. The complainant is using the electricity for the use of his hotel business and, therefore, pending the decision of this dispute by the Electrical Inspector, the electricity supply of the complainant should not be disconnected. However, the complainant is directed to make regular payments of his electricity dues from 6.11.90 onward of the actual consumption. Hence, we pass the following order : - ORDER The complaint is allowed. The bill of Rs, 4,95,101,51 is declared as disputed and both the parties are directed to approach the Government Electrical Inspector for deciding the disputed amount of electricity dues and also to examine the defective meter and decide the dispute according to the Rules. Pending the decision of the Electrical Inspector, the M.S.E.B. shall not discontinue the electricity supply of complainant subject to his payment of regular electricity bills from 6.11.90 onwards of his actual consumption of electricity.

NO costs. Complaint allowed.