AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THIS appeal by the opposite parties have been directed against the orders dated 25. 6. 1997 in C. D. Case No. 04 of 1995 of District Forum, Bhadrak quashing the arrear bill of Rs. 4,436 demanded by them from the complainant and directing them to instal a new meter of ISI within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
FACT in brief for which complainant filed the C. D. Case is that complainant is a consumer of electricity for domestic purpose under the opposite parties. She has already paid electric energy charges Rs. 506 upto February, 1992 on 12. 2. 1992 which has been endorsed by opposite party No. 3 in the card whose photocopy is Annexure-A. That is the actual amount for consumption of electricity. But without assigning any reason, illegally, opposite parties raised her a demand notice (Annexure-3) to pay Rs. 4,436 as outstanding arrear electric dues on or before 19. 10. 1992, failing which the Electricity Board would disconnect electric supply to her premises in view of Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910. Complainant has stated in the complaint petition that she was paying the minimum charges of Rs. 72 per month and this arrear amount has been demanded by the opposite parties for the period from March, 1992 to July, 1992 (3. 1992 to 7. 1992 ). On the other hand, the case of the opposite parties as per their written version as has been clearly described in paragraph 11 that all along complainant was making provisional payment of card value Rs. 40 per month from 11/89 to 10/96 and had not paid her final bill for the said period. Demanding final bill amount Rs. 4,621 upto 7/92, complainant was served with the disconnection notice. The meter of the complainant has been stopped from the month of August, 1992 for which complainant has been charged on load factor basis from that period. Moreover, even though meter reader has reported that the consumption of electricity in complainant''s premises is more as she has rented out the building to students and employees still then unit @ 108 per month on 1 k. w. is charged which is less than actual consumption. It is admitted by them in paragraph 14 of the written version that complainant has paid Rs. 840 on card bill upto 10/96 and the same will be credited into her account against the Electric bill beyond 10/96. Thus, opposite parties had claimed for dismissal of the C. D. Case, they having not caused deficiency in service to the complainant.
As per the impugned order, the District Forum arriving into a finding that the meter in the premises of the complainant has been stopped functioning since 8/89 as is admitted by opposite parties in their counter, held that nothing can be charged from a consumer in respect to energy which is not shown in the meter and assessment of consumption of energy are repugnant to Section 26 (1) (2) and Section 26 (6) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Therefore, assessment of electric charges on average basis is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 4,621 by opposite parties is shortcoming and defect in performance of service, for which opposite parties are liable for causing deficiency in service to the complainant. Accordingly, the District Forum quashed the arrear bill of Rs. 4,436 and directed opposite parties to instal a new meter as per its order dated 25. 6. 1997.
WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing from both sides and perused the materials on record. The case of a party should be gathered from total reading of the petition/complaint and the written version/counter. Complainant in the C. D. Case does not challenge the demand of electric charges as illegal and arbitrary for assessment of average unit on the ground that defective meter is not repaired or replaced by a new one by the opposite parties. Her specific case is that though she has cleared up the electric charges upto February, 1992 (2/92) on payment of Rs. 506 on 12. 2. 1992 yet opposite parties have issued demand notice (Annexure-3) for payment of Rs. 4,436 as arrear electric charge for the period from 3/92 to 7/92.
BUT the case of the opposite parties as has been clarified in the appeal memo is that as per the guideline, consumer is to make payment of provisional amount pending finalization of final bill and provisional bill amount paid in the meantime is to be adjusted. As per guideline, the complainant has only paid the card bill of Rs. 40 per month which is not actual amount and she has not paid the final bill amount till date. In the present case, complainant is charged final bill upto end of July, 1992 (7/1992 ). The meter being stopped from 8/1992 bill is being made on load factor basis as per the General Condition of Supply Regulation. The complainant is a regular defaulter and does not want to pay the final bill amount as per demand notice (Annexure-3 ). So Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act has no application to the present case and complainant has been instructed through several notices to instal her own meter. They do not admit that meter was stopped since 8/1998. In these end of the view, according to the opposite parties, District Forum has committed wrong in quashing the final bill amount demanded as per Annexure-3. Bill card (Annexure-1) produced by complainant/respondent shows that complainant was paying card bill Rs. 40 per month and has paid Rs. 506 upto February, 1992. That is her last payment as per said bill card. Nowhere she has stated that said amount is the actual consumption charge per month and is the final bill amount. Therefore, the opposite parties are justified when they claim that as per Annexure-3 they have demanded the final bill amount. Bill Annexure-3 clearly shows that the amount of Rs. 4,436 is demanded as outstanding bills upto 2/1992. Thus this amount is not demanded as the arrear electric charges from 3/1992 to 7/1992 as has been stated in the complaint petition by the complainant. Complainant does not deny that she is not entitled to pay towards final bill amount. She has also not protested before the authorized officer of the Electricity Board complaining the bill amount as per Annexure-3 or against demand of final bill on the ground that she is paying card bill. The extract of ledger in respect to "detailed statement of billing and payment made by Smt. Jyotshnamayee at Jagannathpur Consumer No. BX-204817 (load 1 K. W.)" filed by opposite parties/appellants corroborate the final bill amount for the aforesaid period. The footnote of the extract of the ledger supports to the stand taken by opposite parties/appellants that the amount paid by complainant on card value or on demand by the Electricity Board are being adjusted with the final bill amount. In view of those materials, we find the opposite parties have not illegally or arbitrarily demanded Rs. 4,436 towards outstanding final bill upto 2/1992 as per Annexure-3. Therefore, the impugned order of the District Forum cannot be sustained. In the result, we find complainant had no reason to file the C. D. Case challenging Annexure-3. Therefore, the appeal is allowed on contest without cost. The impugned orders dated 25. 6. 1997 of the District Forum in C. D. Case No. 04 of 1995 is hereby set aside and the C. D. Case is dismissed. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Appeal allowed.