AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
LIFE Insurance Corporation of India, complainant owns a building known as Jeevan Parkash at Chandigarh. There are several meters which are utilised for measurement of the electricity supplied to the premises. In para 2 of the complaint the present dispute relates to the bill pertaining to one meter in respect of which bills are received vide Account No. 104/1703/707055W. Through this meter electricity supply of a part of the building shown in the site plan Annexure C-1 is regulated and this built portion consists of 1712.13 sq. ft. The complainant noticed that the bill dated 21.1.1999 in the sum of Rs. 5,20,442.52 was wholly unjustified and it also came to know that a multiplier of ten has been wrongly used by the respondent while preparing the bills. The relief claimed in para 13 of the complaint is as under : (a) Status quo may be maintained till the decision of this complaint. (b) Amounts due under bills dated 21.3.1997 to 28.11.1998 may be recalculated after removing the multiplier factor 10 and excess amount charged be refunded. (c) Interest on the excess amount charged be awarded at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of payment till date of refund. (d) The current bill dated 21.1.1997 may be modified by removing multiplier factor 10 and deleting the sundry charges. (e) Costs of these proceedings.
A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it has been averred that in this case the total consumption should have been calculated and recorded on the meter reading which should have been multiplied by two only. Besides this there is a plea that a kind of surprise checking was carried out on 12.11.1998 and the meter was found running slow by 52.68%. It has further been averred that the accounts of the complainant have been overhauled and necessary credit has been afforded after rectifying the mistake of multiplication which had resulted in excessive bills. It shall be useful to refer to a combined reply of the respondent made to paras 9, 10 and 11 of the complaint and it is reproduced as under : "9, 10 and 11. In reply to paras 9, 10 and 11 it is submitted that in view of the checking report dated 12.11.1998 it has been found that the multiplying factor should be taken as 2 only. The figure of 10 has been inadvertently taken for multiplying the consumption. The same has also been pleaded by the plaintiff vide his letter dated 30.1.1999. The details have been worked out and appended wherein the total amount charged in excess has been credited to this account."
A perusal of this important part of the reply established that the grievance of the complainant that the multiplier of ten was wrongfully applied by the respondent. The respondent started making rectifications as shown in the statement, Annexure R-2, attached with the reply. A perusal thereof shows that the respondent started giving credit to the complainant from the bill for 4/97 to 6/97 onwards a few months after 5.2.1999 when the complaint was instituted.
In para 7 of the reply there is a plea that during the checking of the meter on 12.11.1998 it was noticed that it was slow by 52.68%. An attempt has been made to justify the excess charges made by the respondent to meet a part of the alleged slow running. In Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. UP State Electricity Board & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 2793, it has been observed that if there is a dispute as to the proper functioning of the meter a check meter or other electrical apparatus under Sub-section (6) of Section 26, finding of Electrical Inspector in this regard is essential. The respondent has not brought on record the proceedings of inquiry much less finding of the Electricity Inspector. In Khurshed Sorabjit Cooper v. Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, AIR 1995 Bombay 79, it was observed that only Electrical Inspector could opine whether the meter had ceased to be correct. The arbitrary back billing was held unjustified in Topasa Ramasa Patil v. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore & Ors., AIR 1989 Karnataka 279. In the facts and circumstances of this case we hold that the plea that the meter in question was running slow for some time has not been established and consequently the proceedings held on 11.11.1998 and 13.11.1998 in Annexure R-1 being not in accordance with the rules and procedure are hereby set aside.
AFTER considering all these aspects we hold that there was excess charging. A statement furnished by the Electricity Department shows that the sum recovered from the complainant is Rs. 15,45,555/-. Thus we direct the respondent to pay Rs. 13,68,912.00 specified in the statement furnished by the respondent plus Rs. 1,53,594.00 erroneously levied on account of slow metering totalling Rs. 15,22,506.00. In the alternative it may be adjusted from the forthcoming bills of the complainant. The respondent is also held liable to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on the excess payment charged from the date of institution of the complaint till realisation/adjustment. Besides this the respondent shall pay costs Rs. 5,000/-. Complaint disposed of.