MAHENDRA KUMAR ASHOK KUMAR vs SECRETARY, R.S.E.B., JAIPUR

THIS appeal has been filed by M/s. Mahendra Kumar Ashok Kumar through its partner Ashok Kumar Agarwal against the order of the District Forum, Jaipur dated 23.10.92 whereby his complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed.

M/s. Mahendra Kumar Ashok Kumar is a partnership firm and it carries on business in Johari Bazar, Jaipur. The firm had taken electricity connection on 29.12.86 from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. According to the complainant the electricity meter was working correctly and the complainant had been paying the electricity bills according to meter reading. However in the month of Aug., 1989 the firm received an electricity consumption bill for an amount of Rs. 18,137.45. The amount of this electricity bill was stated to be illegal. The complainant alleged in the complaint that he had not used electricity during the period from 2.9.86 to 25.6.87. He also alleged that the electricity meter had never stopped. He further stated on 12.1.87 he had intimated to the Electricity Board that he was not using electricity. He prayed that the Electricity Board may be directed to allow deposit of the current bill according to consumption of electricity and not to recover the amount of Rs. 18,137.45 illegally included in the bill. It was further prayed that the Opposite Parties may be directed not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant. Upon a reference made to the Opposite Parties, they filed version of their case and reply. It was admitted in the reply that commercial electricity connection of 10 KV of three phases had been sanctioned in favour of the complainant firm w.e.f. 29.12.86. It was however pleaded that the meter had stopped and therefore a new meter was replaced on 12.6.87. This replaced meter also stopped after recording reading upto 609 units. Accordingly this second meter was also replaced by another meter on 24.6.87. Despite this replacement of the meter, it did not show correct reading and the Electricity Board had again to change the electricity meter on 24.6.88. The meter replaced on 24.6.88 was giving correct readings since the time it was installed. The Opposite Parties stated that the amount of Rs. 18,137.45 was included in the electricity bill issued to the complainant firm for Aug., 1986 with respect to the period of 18 previous months i.e. from 29.12.86 to 24.6.88 on the basis of the average consumption of electricity by the complainant during three months after 24.6.88 when the latest meter was installed. It was therefore pleaded that the Opposite Parties were not illegally recovering amount of Rs. 18,137.45.

The District Forum has found that as the meter had stopped from 29.12.86 to 24.6.88, they had to be replaced on 12.6.87, 24.6.87 and on 24.6.88. According to the District Forum the General Conditions of Supply empowered the Electricity Board to calculate the electricity charges during the period the meter remained stopped on the basis of average consumption after a working meter was installed or on the basis of average of three months consumption prior to that period. It was not excepted that the compiainant had informed the official of the Electricity Board that he was not consumed any electricity. The version put forward by the complainant that he did not use the electricity from Dec, 1986 to June 1987 was disbelieved. On the basis of these findings, the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

I have heard the learned Counsels for the both parties and have gone through the evidence adduced by them. It is an admitted position that the complainant firm carries on partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Mahendra Kumar Ashok Kumar in Johari Bazar, Jaipur. Johari Bazar is an important commercial market of Jaipur. The said partnership firm had taken commercial electricity connection of 10KV and of three phases on 29,12.86. The Opposite Parties-respondents produced before the District Forum meter reading card. The meter reading card goes to show that the meter had stopped and it was taken out on 10.6.87 for testing. It was also recorded in the said card that a new meter was replaced on 12.6.87. This second meter also did not record consumption. Consequently a third meter was changed on 24.6.88. After June 1988, the meter readings go to show that two monthly consumption of electricity consumed by the complainant was generally not less than 2000 units. The meter reading recorded on 4.10.88 showed electricity consumption of 4343 units, that recorded on 5.12.88 showed consumption of 2124 units. It is thus clear that owing to the reason that the meters were stopped, correct reading of electricity consumption were not recorded. This is difficult to believe that the complainant firm despite carrying on business in Johari Bazar, Jaipur did not consume any electricity during that period from 29.12.86 to 24.6.87. The District Forum rightly held that this version of the complainant was false. The only question that remains for consideration is as to on what basis the electricity consumption with respect to the period from 29.12.86 to 24.6.88 should be worked out during which the meters had remained stopped. Clause 1 below condition No. 19(vii) provides that the quantity of electricity supplied during the period in which the meter stopped shall be determined by taking average of the consumption recorded during three months or 12 months whichever is higher, immediately preceding month in which the meter stopped. Item 3 below the said clause provides that where it is not possible to select average base, the quantity of electricity supplied during the period in which the meter seaze to function shall be determined by the billing authority or by the vigilance checking officer as the case may be on the basis, of connected load, hours of supply in the area and hours of usage to the extent it is reasonably possible to ascertain. In the present case, since the meter remained out of order right from the very beginning that is from 29.12.86 till the latest third meter was installed on 24.6.88, it was not possible to select the average basis provided in item No. 1 below condition No. 19(vii) of the General Conditions of Supply. The Opposite Parties-respondents had therefore to determine the amount of electricity consumed during the period the meters remained stopped under item 3 below condition No. 19(vii) of the General Conditions of Supply namely on the basis of connected load, hours of supply in the area and hours of usage to the extent it was reasonably be possible to ascertain. Admittedly the Opposite Parties determined the consumption with respect to the period during the meter remained stopped by taking average of the consumption recorded during three months subsequent to the month in which the working meter was installed. Average could not be worked out of subsequent readings. Under item 1 referred to above the average of the consumption has to be worked out on the basis of three months or twelve months, whichever is higher immediately proceeding month in which the meter stopped. It could not be worked out on the basis of the period subsequent to the installing of a working meter. Clearly therefore item 3 below condition No. 19(vii) will apply for the reason that on account of the meters remaining stopped during the relevant period, it was not possible to select average basis as indicated in item 1. I therefore, partly allow this appeal and direct the Opposite Parties to issue a revised electricity consumption bill to the appellant firm with respect to the period commencing from 29.12.86 and upto 24.6.88 after determining the quantity of electricity supplied during the said period in accordance with item 3 below condition No. 19(vii) of the General Conditions of Supply. The claim of the complainant that he was only liable to pay the electricity bill regarding his consumption of the months of June and July, 1989 and not the past arrears of the period from 29.12.86 to 24.6.88 is disallowed. Appeal partly allowed.