JVVNL, KOTA vs Abdul Salam

THIS revision petition is filed against the Order dated 15.5.2002 passed by the State Commission of Rajasthan, Jaipur wherein the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by JVVNL, Kota the successor of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB).

ACCORDING to the respondent/complainant he is running business of stone cutting and polishing, and had taken electric connection of 50 HP and his monthly average consumption was 848.50 units only. On 8.7.1992 his meter was checked and after opening the meter he was told that two phases are closed and he was drawing electricity from one CT only. ACCORDINGly, two CTs were purchased by him and installed after which electricity authorities checked the meter and gave a bill for Rs. 31,435 paise. Complainant paid this amount under threat of disconnection of electricity. Complainant filed a complaint praying that this amount should be repaid and electric connection should not be disconnected and he may be paid Rs. 10,000 as compensation. The petitioner/opposite party Electricity Board contended that during inspection on 8.7.1992 two phases of meter coil 2, LTCT were burnt (along with the meter). This inspection was carried out in the presence of representative of the consumer whose signature was obtained on the inspection report. Thereafter on the basis of the average consumption of six months period, a bill was given to the complainant according to the rules of the Board. The District Forum after hearing the parties was convinced about the steps taken by the Electricity Board and dismissed the complaint. In appeal the State Commission remanded the case back to the District Forum on 28.6.1996. On remand the District Forum held that electricity authorities have not complied with Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of Indian Electricity Act, as this dispute should have been decided by the Electricity Inspector and the Electricity Board should not have raised arbitrary bill for Rs. 31,435.05 paise. Accordingly it cancelled this demand and in case the complainant had deposited the amount with the Electricity Board this should be paid back to him with 15% interest till payment along with compensation to the tune of Rs. 600.

Dissatisfied by this Order of the District Forum dated 30.4.1997 the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed their appeal. Hence, this revision.

HAVING heard the learned Counsel Mr. Rohit Madan for the revision petitioner JVVNL, Kota (Successor of RSEB) and Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh for the respondent,we can consider the issue of deficiency in service by the Board in any one or more of the following situations: (1) Electricity Board gives exorbitant bills without inspecting the meter or inspecting the meter in the absence of the consumer or his representative. (2) If it issues bill on the basis of average consumption for a period of more than six months. (3) It does not refer the faulty meter for testing to the Electrical Inspector. (4) It does not comply with the conditions stipulated in the test report of the Electrical Inspector.

None of the above four situations have occurred in this case. Electrical connection of the consumer was inspected by the officer of the Board in the presence of the representative of the consumer. It was found that only one phase was joined to CT/PT Chamber and the remaining two phases were not joined. Accordingly the meter was running slow and the speed was 1/3 of the normal speed. After the two phases of CT/PT were joined, the Board raised a bill of Rs. 31,435.05 paise on the basis of average consumption for six months.

SECTION 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act 1910 is reproduced below : "26. Meters-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 &........ (6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in Sub-section (1) is or not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector, and where the meter has in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct, but save as aforesaid the register of the meter shall in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity."

The Electricity Board had referred this case to the Electrical Inspector. The records produed before us indicates a letter dated 15.7.1993 written by the Assistant Engineer (A-1) RSEB addressed to the Electrical Inspector, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur regarding testing of CTs, of Mr. Abdul Salam Prop. Super Stone Cutting and Polishing Ind. IPIA Kota-MIP A/c No. M-1 125 Court Case No. 835/92 filed of RSEB (DF), to which the Electrical Inspector has responded on 29.7.1993 as follows : Returned in original along with C.Ts. under reference with the remarks that there is no testing laboratory in this department, hence testing of C.Ts. is not possible by this office.

THE Electricity Board is not responsible for improving or enhancing the infrastructure/testing facilities of the Electrical Inspectorate. Bill was raised on the basis of reading recorded by the meter from 8.7.1992 onwards taking average consumption of electricity for a consecutive period of six months which was just and proper. Respondent cannot claim amount of the bill on average consumption for six months on basis of meter reading prior to 8.7.1992 when meter was recording less consumption. Order passed by Fora below, thus cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, while allowing revision, the orders passed by Fora below are set aside and complaint dismissed. No order as to cost. R.P. allowed.