AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE case of the complainant is that the CESCO committed gross deficiency in service by imposing an erroneous penal bill on her. THE complainant is a house-wife and is a bona fide consumer of electricity. Her consumer number is 11-D-176 A/c. No. 02016674. THE complainant''s contract load was 1 K.W. THE energy bills were being prepared on the basis of actual consumption of energy as the meter status was ''O.K.''. She was paying the bills regularly and there were some arrears.
THE complainant alleges that suddenly on 28.8.2003 a squad of CESCO forcibly entered into the residence of the complainant and verified the meter in spite of her objection. THEy checked the switch points and handed over the investigation report to the complainant. She alleges that the facts of the report are false, absurd and without any basis. On 29.8.2003 she received a letter from the CESCO along with a penal bill wherein it was mentioned that the meter was tampered with and the connected load was raised to 3.5 KWs against the contract demand load of 1 KW. THEy raised a penal bill and arrear bill amounting to Rs. 30,094.10 with a direction to pay the same on or before 9.9.2003, failing which the power supply would be disconnected on the next day i.e., 10.9.2003 without any further information. The complainant submitted a representation on the next day in which she had stated that the Line Man of the CESCO had broken the meter by saying that the current was not passing through the meter and they replaced the service wire. It is clear to the naked eye that the meter was working properly and this is evident from the bills wherein the meter status was shown as ''O.K.''. The complainant was residing in her residence with one child and her husband was almost residing outside. There is no question of tampering with the meter. She requested the CESCO authorities to withdraw the penal bill but they did not take any step.
The opposite parties in their written version stated that the allegations made by the complainant are false. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties argued vehemently that the case is not maintainable and the verification report is correct as because the contract demand was enhanced from 1 KW to 3.5 KW and there was also tampering of the meter. Hence the penal bill is rightly prepared.
BY our order dated 11.9.2003 we had directed the CESCO not to disconnect the power supply to the premises of the complainant and by our order dated 12.9.2003 the complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- towards the penal bill. We are told that power supply to the premises of the complainant has been restored and she has been paying the current bills. In similar other cases we have already held that when there is an allegation of theft of energy by way of tampering the meter, this Court is not competent to adjudicate the matter and, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. So also the penalty raised on the basis of such alleged tampering of the meter cannot be gone into by this Court. The matter should be adjudicated by the Designated Authority under the Regulations, 1998.
WE, therefore, directed the complainant to approach the Designated Authority within a period of one week from today and the Designated Authority is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of two months thereafter. WE make it clear that the complainant shall go on paying the current charges on the basis of the actual consumption that would be found as per the new meter so installed as indicated above. WE also make it clear that the line shall not be disconnected during the period of adjudication before the Designated Authority for non-payment of the penal bill. Complaint disposed of.