NUNES ENTERPRISES, COCHIN vs OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, PANAJI

THE complainant has approached this Commission with a complaint that he has been charged excessively for the consumption of electricity and, thereafter, disconnected the electric supply arbitrarily. Shortly stated facts are that the complainant has been running an Ice Factory at Goa and had obtained electric connection for the said factory. THE complainant alleged that on 29.6.1990, his electric meter was checked by the staff of the Electricity Department. However, on that date, they could not remove the meter for want of instruments. On 5.7.1990, the staff of the Opposite Party again arrived at the complainant''s premises and changed the full metering system of the factory alleging that the original meter was tampered with. Finally, on 4.9.1990, electric supply to the complainant''s factory was disconnected. Ultimately, the complainant was served with a bill for the consumption of excess electricity of Rs. 5,22,637.00p from the date of installation in the year 1985. THE complainant, therefore, alleged that there was deficiency in the service of the Opposite Party in as much as he was overcharged for the electricity which he did not consume and claimed loss of Rs. 90,000.00p with interest.

IN response to the notice of this Commission under Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, the Opposite Party filed its written version on 22,6.1991. The claim of the complainant was opposed on technical grounds and on merits it was stated that the Complainant illegally interfered with the metering system without obtaining permission of the Electricity Department On 27.6.1991, after hearing both the parties, we passed an interim order directing the Opposite Party to continue with the electric supply to complainant to avoid his loss and direct the Electricity Inspector, Panaji, to entertain the dispute in relation to meter 45 H.P. connection under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Thereafter, we have received a report from the Electricity Inspector dated 7.10.1991. The report contains the details of observations and also final estimate of energy consumed by the complainant during the past eight months. The said report is placed on record.

We heard the complainant through Shri Kamat, Advocate and the Opposite Party by Shri Thaly, Advocate. The Opposite Party has many times in the past had checked the meter of the complainant to know whether the original meter was tampered with. The complainant has therefore alleged in his complaint that he had obtained electric connection in the year, 1985 and, thereafter, the meter was examined by the staff of the Opposite Party several times but not tampering of the meter was found. The Opposite Party surprisingly claimed a huge amount of Rs. 5,22,637.00p from June, 1985 to June, 1990. We fail to understand that on earlier occasions no tampering was noticed and it is surprising that how it was noticed for the first time on 5.7.1990? It is equally strange that when the staff of the Opposite Party had visited the premises of the complainant on 29.6.90, no such tampering was noticed, and all of sudden tampering was found on 5.7.1990. We, therefore, clearly suspect the correctness of tampered meter. We also find that there was deficiency in the service of Opposite Party in disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant for nonpayment of past arrears of Rs. 5,22,637.00p without getting the disputed meter examined from the electrical inspector. Moreover the huge amount of Bill based on the assumption of defective meter since the inception cannot be made the basis for disconnection. No legal notice was served on Opposite Party for the disconnection. We, therefore, clearly find that the electricity bill from 1985 to 1990 needs to be revised on the basis of average and normal consumption of the complainant as regards his 45 H.P. connection. We also find that the Opposite Party was negligent in not making the correct panchanama or on nothings on 29.6.90 when they visited the premises of the complainant. We also find that disconnection of electric supply on account of arbitrary and excessive billing was certainly a deficiency in service of the Opposite Party.

IT is submitted that the complainant had paid the bill of his electricity regularly as per the bill presented to him till the date of inspection. Since the complainant disputed the correctness of the bill in question the consumer dispute arising in this case cannot be decided within our limited summary powers. There are many disputed questions of facts we are therefore unable to adjudicate on the correctness or otherwise of the disputed bill of Rs. 5,22,637.00p, in absence of convincing evidence. As regards allegations regarding deficiency in the service of the Opposite Party is concerned, we are of the. view that the complainant has proved his allegations. We, have, in earlier paragraphs, have held that there was deficiency in the service of the complainant in sending the heavy Bill without proper enquiry. We also find that he was put to loss of business and had to pay the staff without production between 4.9.90 to 23.7.91 due to disconnection of electricity to his 45 H.P. motor. The complainant has claimed Rs. 90,000.00p for the loss of his income but he has not placed before us the material to assess the quantum of the loss during the aforesaid period. However, it is stated that the manufacture of ice was stopped during the period of disconnection. The complainant must have suffered loss in evident from the facts and circumstances. In our estimation, it would meet the ends of justice to award the complainant an amount of Rs. 50,000.00 for the loss which he suffered on account of negligence in the service of Opposite Party on the basis of estimating his loss at Rs. 5,000/- per month. The negligence on the part of opponent has been established beyond doubt by sending him excessive bill for a period which was not covered due to defect in the meter. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 50,000.00p to the complainant as compensation for the business loss which the complainant suffered during the period of disconnection. As regards the Bill for Rs. 5,22,637.00p is concern, it is open to both the parties to approach the appropriate Court to challenge the correctness or otherwise if so advised. We, therefore, decline to decide the correctness or otherwise about bill of Rs. 5,22,637.00.p The amount of compensation be paid to complainant within 2 months from the date of this order. Complaint allowed.