M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD vs RAM GARIB LONIA

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 30.5.1996 in Case No. 225/93 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), by which bill for Rs. 3,680/- raised by M.P.E.B. was annulled and the respondent/original complainant was directed to pay Rs. 600/- towards additional security deposit.

THE facts of the case in brief are as follows : THE respondent/complainant before District Forum, had an electric supply connection for energising a 10 H.P. engine for running his Flour Mill. In his complaint before District Forum, he alleged that he was wrongly given a bill for Rs. 1,879/- in July, 1993 and without properly replying about its propriety gave another bill for Rs. 600/- in August, 1993 and yet another for Rs. 3,680/- in September, 1993, without any justification and only to harass him, in spite of his regularly paying his bills. He requested that the bills be annulled and he be awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony. In reply, the opposite party/appellant in the present case, submitted that they had clarified the position to the respondent that the bill for Rs. 1,879/- in July, 1993 was towards payment of additional security deposit but since the revised instructions were received and therefore, in place of bill for Rs. 1,897/- a revised bill for Rs. 600/- was sent in August, 1993. However, even then bill for Rs. 600/- remained unpaid.

As regards, the bill for Rs. 3,680/- given in September, 1993 the opposite party/appellant in this case averred that it was arrear bill for 13 months from September, 1986 to October, 1987 during which period, the respondent''s meter had become non-functional and hence no meter reading could be taken and he was charged minimum charges only which are payable even if no supply is taken. Meter was replaced in October, 1987 and after that billing was as per meter. Unfortunately, meter reader failed to report about non-functioning of meter to proper Authorities and the mistake was detected by Test audit party. Their report indicated the arrears are recoverable under Rule 19(c)(iii) of M.P. General Conditions of Supply etc. Rules framed by M.P.E.B. As per their rules if the meter becomes non-functional the arrears have to be worked out on the basis of average consumption during the preceding three months of the same period, when meter was functional. Accordingly, the arrears were worked out and amounted to Rs. 3,680/- for 13 months. After hearing both the parties, the District Forum passed order on 30.5.1996 as described in para 1 above.

IN this appeal, the appellant contended that the order of District Forum holding that the arrear bill for 13 months was unjustified is contrary to law and facts. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the District Forum was shown the audit report and therefore, ample justification for arrear bill of Rs. 3,680/- was provided and that the District Forum made an error in interpreting the evidence of Junior Engineer of M.P.E.B. who was only justifying the raising of arrear bill. We have heard both the parties and have perused the record of the case. It is not disputed that Rule 19(c)(iii) of the rules framed for supply of Electricity by M.P.E.B. does empower them to make recovery of arrears by revising bills. The Test audit report on the revenue accounts for the period from September, 1986 to October, 1987 in respect of the complainant''s meter, which was conducted in 1991, recorded fault in the meter and a recovery of Rs. 3,680/- was raised against the complainant.

THE point to be considered by us is whether the appellant was justified in recovering arrears of Rs. 3,680/-. Appel lants have submitted that there has been a serious lapse on the part of the meter reader in not reporting the non- functioning of the meter to the Authorities. On a perusal of the evidence of the appellant-opposite party''s witness No. 1 Shri Adarsh Kumar Upadhyay, Junior Engineer, we find that the witness in his cross-examination has clearly stated that on 18.8.1987 the electric bill issued to the complainant was based on actual consumption. This statement militates against the inference of fault of meter during the period 1986 to 1987 as drawn during the audit conducted in 1991. THE reason for presuming a fault in the meter is based merely on the ground that the glass of the meter was cracked. THE mere presence of a cracked glass of the meter cannot necessarily justify an inference of fault in the functioning of the meter during the period September, 1986 to October, 1987 in the face of the clear statement of the Engineer that the electric bill issued on 18.8.1987 was based on actual consumption. THE District Forum has therefore, not found the recovery on the test audit report reliable in the light of the evidence of the concerned Junior Engineer who testified to the proper functioning of the meter on 18.8.1987, a date which falls within the period September, 1986 to October, 1987 during which an inference of faulty functioning of the meter has been raised on surmise as it appears. In the circumstances, we find no valid reason to differ from the finding of fact reached by the District Forum which justifies rejection of the bill based on the test audit report. This appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.