MAYUR EXPORT PVT. LTD. vs West Bengal State Electricity Board

THIS is complainant''s appeal against the order of District Forum dated 15.11.1996. By the said order the complaint was rejected with a direction to the complainant to make payment of disputed bill dated 6.1.1992 for Rs. 23,462.10 to the opposite party within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

THE complainant had challenged the supplementary bill dated 8.1.1992 for Rs. 23,462.10 issued by the W.B.S.E.B. (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") representing undercharge of electricity for the period commencing from 29.11.1990 to 27.11.1991 on the ground that one of the three phases of electricity has not been working which was detected by the Internal Audit Party of the Board on 9.12.1991. THE complainant had been regularly paying electricity bills month by month issued by the Board and there was no outstanding. According to the complainant when any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is correct or not, the matter shall be decided by the Electrical Inspector and the determination of this type of dispute cannot be left to the Board itself. It has been contended that the Board had no jurisdiction and/or authority of law to decide the said dispute of undercharge and to raise any supplementary bill in support of the contention that the Electrical Inspector alone is empowered to decide the dispute, the complainant has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Basantbai, reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 71. It may be mentioned that the supplementary bill was raised on the basis of report of Internal Audit Party of the Board. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant was enjoying electricity from three phases and one of the phases was rendered ineffective and this occurred due to use of extra load in excess of sanctioned load for the meters. THEre has been admission in the petition of complaint itself to this effect. THE complainant admitted that he used extra load for Grinding Machine. THE learned Lawyer appearing for the Board submits that the case cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as here the question of pilferage of electricity was involved. THEre was no defect in the meter and as such the case cited by the appellant is not attracted. Here the supplementary bill was raised by the Electricity Board pursuant to the report of the Internal Audit Party. Since there was no defect in the meter no reference to the Electrical Inspector is necessary. THE learned Lawyer for the Board has drawn our attention to a case reported in 1997 (2) Judgment Today page 328 SC, M/s. Swastic Industries v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board. It may be mentioned that the supplementary demand is in respect of escaped billing and as such the case cited by learned Counsel for the respondent applies fully to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above and hold that the case was rightly decided by the Forum and no interference is warranted.

The appeal fails and is dismissed without cost. The appellant to make payment of the sum of Rs. 23,462.10 to the opposite party within a period of two weeks from the date of the order failing which the opposite parties will be at liberty to take proper steps for realisation of the amount. Appeal dismissed.