M.P. PANDYA vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant M.P. Pandya against the order of the District Forum, Jodhpur dated 19.1.1993 dismissing Complaint Case No. 422/91 filed by the complainant.

COMPLAINANT had an electricity connection at his House No. 128, Bakhat Sagar and electric consumer number is 31/3/435 and service number is 32222. The complainant filed an complaint on 19.9.1991 before the District Forum Jodhpur alleging that in March, 1986 the reading in the meter was 1433. It was stated that from March, 1986 to September, 1987 no meter reader came to take the meter reading and monthly electricity bills of minimum charges of Rs. 18/-per month were sent to the complainant which the complainant continued to deposit within time. It was only in December, 1987 that the meter reader came and found the meter reading 1644 and the consumption as 1644 1433=211 units and electricity bill for Rs. 158.49 was sent to the complainant which the complainant deposited on 22.12.1987. The complainant states that the meter reading in February, 1988 was 1721-1644 and in April, 1988 it was 17651721. Thereafter no meter reader came to record the meter readings and electricity consumption bills showing nil consumption were sent and the complainant was charged minimum charges at Rs. 22/-per month. In September, 1989 no meter reader came to record the readings, but in the electricity bill consumption of nine units was shown. In October, 1989 the meter reading was shown as 1870-1744 and consumption of 96 units was shown. For the period from December, 1989 to February, 1990, the consumption was shown as 2446-2146 i.e. of 300 units and April, 1990 of 160 units and in July, 1990 of 315 units. The complainant states that during the above period the meter had not stopped on 27.8.1990. The opposite party installed a new meter on 27.8.1990. The complainant was then charged according to the reading in the replaced meter. Grievance of the complainant is with regard to electricity bill No. 832811 dated 16.9.1991 where under an amount of Rs. 3,922.92 was levied on the basis of average for the period from April, 1986 to 28.11.1990. For the purpose of taking average, the average consumption with respect to the period from 7.8.1990 to 28.11.1990 was made the basis and charges were levied for 54 months i.e. from April, 1986 to 28.11.1990 his meter was working, charges on the basis of average could not be made. The complainant, therefore, prayed that the above amount of Rs. 3,922.92 may be ordered to be adjusted and the opposite parties may be directed not to recover this amount. The opposite parties in their version stated that the meter reader used to go to take the meter reading but the meter was in a stopped condition since April, 1986. As regards the various consumptions mentioned by the complainant in paras 4 & 5 of the complaint, they were not disputed. It was, however, stated that there were two meters installed at the premises of the complainant and if the meter reader only recorded consumption on estimated basis, he should have done so also in relation to the other meter. It is said that when readings were found in the meter, the same were noted by the meter reader and electricity bill of the consumed units was sent. According to the opposite parties, the meter was defective/stopped and it gave reading only from May, 1989 to June, 1989. It is admitted that in September 1991 an electricity bill on the basis of average from April, 1986 to September, 1990 was sent to the complainant on the basis of average. It is also admitted that for the purpose of arriving at the average, consumption from 27.8.1990 to 28.11.1990 was made the basis. The arrear bill was said to be justified.

The District Forum, Jodhpur held that the meter was found to be stopped and, therefore, minimum charges were charged. When the new meter was installed past arrears were charged on the basis of average and this charging was no wrong. On the basis of these findings, the District Forum, Jodhpur dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant has filed this appeal.

WE may state that under Condition No. 19(d)(vii)-1 average charging can be made when the meter is out of order i.e. burnt, stopped or has ceased to function. Where there is percentage of defect in the meter, then Condition No. 19(d)(vii)1 has no application. When the meter is out of order i.e. burnt, stopped or ceased to function, then the quantity of electricity supply during the period in which the meter stopped/burnt/ceased to function can be determined by taking average of the consumption, recorded during the three months or 12 months, whichever is higher, immediately proceeding the month in which the meter stopped/burnt/ceased to function. The complainant''s averments contained in Paras 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the complaint clearly mentioned that while the meter reading in March, 1986 was 1433, this reading was 1644 in December, 1987. It was 1721 in February, 1988 and 1763 in April, 1988. In September, 1989 the meter reading was 1774, in October, 1989 it was 1870 and in December, 1989 it was 2146. In February, 1990 the meter reading was 2446, in April, 1990 it was 2606 and in July, 1990 it was 2921. The complainant had produced photo copies of all the electricity bills which he had received. The photo copies of the electricity bills produced by the complainant support his averments contained in paras 3, 4 & 5 of the complaint. It is borne out from them that while the meter reading in March, 1986 was 1433, this meter reading had increased up to 2921. It cannot, therefore, be said that the meter during the period from April, 1986 to September, 1990 was out of order i.e. burnt, stopped or had ceased to function. On the other hand, the meter was functioning during the above period inasmuch as the meter reading went upwards from 1433 to 2921. It was, therefore, not a case of the meter being out of order. It can either be a case where the meter had percentage of defect in it or it may be a case where the complainant was using devices and tampering with the meter so that it may remain stopped to the period the complainant liked. If later was the case, then it was a case of theft of electricity energy or mal practice. If former was the case, then it was a case of meter having percentage of defect. It was not at all the case of meter being out of order i.e. burnt, stopped of having ceased to function. Consequently the average rule contained in Condition No. 19d)(vii)Note 1 had no application whatsoever. It may also be stated that under the above condition '' average has to be calculated on the basis of average of the consumption during proceeding three months or 12 months, whichever was higher. In the present case admittedly the opposite parties worked out the average not on the basis of proceeding consumption, but on the basis of succeeding period. This is not permissible even under Condition No. 19(d)(vii)-Note 1. The arrear bill of the amount of Rs. 3,922.92 sent by the opposite parties to the complainant on 16.9.1991 was, therefore, clearly illegal. If it was a case of a percentage of defect in the meter, then the dispute should have been referred to the Electricity Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which was not done. The Electricity Inspector could assess the consumption for a period not exceeding six months. If it was a case of tampering with the meter by the complainant, then it was for the Asstt. Engineer to inspect the site and prepare a checking memo and find out whether the complainant was committed theft of electricity energy or was committing any other act of malpractice. For more than four years, nothing was done by the Asstt. Engineer (Distribution) RSEB, Jodhpur and for all this period of more than four years, some times electricity bills were sent of the minimum charges and at other time on the basis of unit consumption reflected by the meter. But at no point of time the negligent Asstt. Engineer of the RSEB ever took pains to find out as to what was the reason that for 54 months the meter was showing either nil consumption or nominal consumption or lesser consumption. Admittedly no action was taken against the complainant under Condition No. 29 of the General Conditions of Supply. No action was taken under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Simple action was taken by sending a bill on the basis of average charging for 54 months. As has clearly been found above and as is strengthened from the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties during the period in question that the meter was not out of order or burnt or had not ceased to function. The levying of arrears on the basis of average was misconceived and we may say so that it was a misadventure. It is for the RSEB to take action against its own Asstt. Engineer. The arrear bill has no legal sanctity behind it and it deserves to be quashed. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, Jodhpur dated 19.1.1993 and direct the opposite parties respondents not to recover the amount of Rs. 3,922,92/- of the bill in question from the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, we shall leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.