NAGARMAL, VILLAGE NALOT vs ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RSEB, KUCHAMAN CITY, NAGAUR

ALL these 12 appeals will be decided by a common order as they arise from the common judgment of the District Forum, Nagaur dated 30.12.93 passed in 12 complaint cases which had been filed before the District Forum.

FACTS are that all the 12 complainants who filed complaints in District Forum, Nagaur had agricultural electricity connections on their wells in agricultural land. It was their case that agricultural electricity connections had been sanctioned to them on the stipulation that they will be charged for electricity consumption on the basis of readings in their meter. The complainants stated that they were paying the electricity consumption charges every month according to the meter readings. They were also paying rent of the meter at the rate of Rs. 12/ per month. However, the Opposite Party arbitrarily removed the meter on 1.3.91 and decided to charge from the complainants on the basis of average rate instead of on the basis of the meter reading. The complainants, therefore, filed the complaints praying that the Opposite Party may be restrained from disconnecting their agricultural electricity connections for non-payment of dues on the basis of flat rate and the Opposite Party may be directed to refix the meter, which had been removed. The Opposite Party filed a version before the District Forum, Nagaur in which it was admitted that the complainants had electricity connections on their fields. It was also pleaded that according to the orders of the Electricity Board old electricity consumers are to be charged on the basis of the meter readings. However, if an old agricultural electricity consumer either tampers with the meter or the meter is stopped or burnt, then bills are sent on the basis of flat rate. It was admitted by the Opposite Party that a meter had been installed at the electricity installation of the complainants. However, it was stated that steps are also being taken to change the meter. The Opposite Party stated that the complainants had stopped the meter for last two years and, therefore, electricity bills on the basis of flat rate were sent to them from March, 91. It was not disputed that meter rent at the rate of Rs. 12/ per month was charged. It was also not disputed that the meter was removed from the electricity installation of each of the complainants on 1.3.91 and from that date no meter rent was charged. Opposite Party also stated that the complainant tampers with the seal of the meter so that the consumption may not be re corded. The Opposite Party further stated that when plate seal in broken and the consumer does not allow the consumption to be recorded, that has led the Electricity Board to issue bills on the basis of flat rates from 1.3.91.

Before the District Forum, Nagaur the Opposite Party had also filed a statement in which outstanding on the basis of flat rates had been shown up to April, 92, i.e., in respect to the period after the filing of the complaint. In this statement in relation to 5 complainants viz., Gulab Chand, Govind Ram, Jeevan Ram, Nathuram and Mangu Ram it is mentioned that the meter is in a stopped condition. In relation to some other complainants like Bennaram, Chandraram, Jodharam and Udaram it is mentioned that the meter was in a burnt state. For rest of the complainants, it is mentioned that they had tampered with the meter or were commit ting otherwise malpractice.

THE District Forum, Nagaur has dismissed all the complaints on the ground that electricity bills can be sent on the basis of average rate under Condition No. 19 D(vii)(5) of the General Conditions of Supply. THEre is provision in this condition that any person aggrieved from the flat rate rules, can file an appeal before the higher authority. On the basis of these reasonings, all the complaint cases were dismissed. We may state that the District Forum has not examined the real controversy between the parties. The complainants had not challenged any particular arrear bill. The challenge made by the complainants was that they had been sanctioned electricity connections under the stipulation that they would be charged on the basis of meter reading and the meter had also been installed by the Board on the electricity installation of each of the complainants and they were paying monthly rent of the meters at the rate of Rs. 12/ per month. Their further case was that they are paying electricity consumption charges on the basis of meter reading and it was from 1.3.91 the meter had been removed by the Opposite Party. These facts were not disputed by the opposite party in the version filed by it before the District Forum. The entire case of the Opposite Party in the version was that the complainants tamper with the meter and do not permit the meter to record correct reading and that was why since 1.3.91 electricity bills on the basis of average rate were being issued.

WE may state that if a meter is out of order or burnt or stopped, then Condition No. 19D(vii) 2 provides that in case of agriculture consumers, the average Harging for the month/ months the meter is or has been out of order burnt/stopped shall be on the rates applicable to flat rate agriculture consumers. This provision in the General Conditions of Supply clearly permits the Electricity Board to charge from agriculture consumers at the flat rate with respect to the period during which the meter has remained stopped, burnt or otherwise ceased to function. As we have already stated, the complainants have not challenged any previous bills. In the statement filed by the Opposite Party before the District Forum in case of some complainants it is mentioned that they had tampered with the meter or the plate so as not to permit the meter to record the readings. How ever, it is very clear that in none of these cases the authorised officer had made any inspection of the electricity installations as provided in Condition No. 29A(3) of the General Conditions of Supply. No memorandum of inspection had been prepared as provided in the conditions. In other words, no procedure whatsoever was adopted when it was noticed that the consumer was committing theft of energy or otherwise doing any act of malpractice. In the case of theft or malpractice, the procedure is not to charge at flat rate. The procedure is to make provisional assessment and final assessment as provided in Condition No. 29E and Condition No. 20K of General Conditions of Supply. The Opposite Party did not follow any of the procedure provided in Condition No. 29 and onwards. It is also interesting to note that in all the memos of appeals which have been filed before the State Commission, it has been stated that the meters had stopped. They have not said in any of the memos that there was any theft. What really appears to us is that the RSEB or its officers only wanted to turn to charge from the complainants on the basis of flat rate from 1.3.91. This attitude was adopted because on 21.1.91 the Chief Engineer (Commercial) of the Electricity Board had issued an order. In the preamble part of this order, it was mentioned by the Chief Engineer that under the General Conditions of Supply, there was an option to supply electricity to agriculturists either on the basis of flat rate or on the basis of reading in meter. Then the Chief Engineer mentioned that the Vigilance Branch of the Electricity Board was noticing on surprise inspections that thefts of electricity is being committed. Therefore, the Chief Engineer mentioned that it has been decided that if an agriculturist consumer is found to be committing theft of electricity energy, then in future their option for being charged on the basis of meter reading will end and they will be charged on the basis of flat rate. That is why the Opposite Party started sending electricity bills to the complainants on the basis of flat rate since 1.3.91 after taking away the meter.

WE may mention that even this order dated 21.1.91 is not at all applicable when the meters are stopped or burnt or have ceased to function. How could such consumers, whose meters had stopped/burnt or ceased to function and not replaced by the Electricity Board, can be charged on the basis of flat rate forever in pursuance of the above order of the Chief Engineer dated 21.1.91. They could only be charged on the basis of flat rate with respect to the period during which the meters remained stopped or burnt. No right can accrue to the Electricity Board, that despite their own negligence in not replacing the meter, which had stopped or burnt, they can make the back door entry and charge on the basis of flat rate. This was highly arbitrary conduct.

SO far as cases where it has been noted in the statement that theft or malpractice have been committed and, therefore, in pursuance of the above order dated 21.1.91, electricity consumption bills were being sent on the basis of flat rate, such method of charging is not permissible. We have already stated that in relation to the complainants, there was no inspection by the Competent Officer and there was no memorandum of inspection prepared by him mentioning the commission of any theft or act of malpractice. In the absence of that procedure being followed, it could not be held that commission of theft or malpractice was established. Without the inspection and preparation of memorandum of inspections by the Competent Officer, the Opposite Party could not start charging on the basis of flat rate on the basis of the above order dated 21.1.91. It is interesting to note that despite stating that theft was being committed or other malpractice was being committed, no provisional assessment of compensation was made and no final assessment was made. Even no disconnection was made. That only shows that the Opposite Party wanted to get out of the agreement with the complainants regarding their being charged on the basis of meter reading and wanted to charge the complainants at flat rates from 1.3.91 under colourable exercise of power. The Opposite Party cannot be permitted to practice fraud on statute and on their own agreement. The District Forum was, therefore, wrong in dismissing the complaints. We allow all these appeals, set aside the order of the District Forum, Nagaur and direct that the Opposite Party will forthwith fix working meter at the electricity installations of each of the complainants. The Opposite Party will pay to each of the complainants Rs. 2,000/ for removing the meter and not replacing the same right from 1.3.91 and till now. Appeals allowed. _______________