PRAFULBHAI MANEK vs C.G. ELECTRICITY BOARD

BY this common order both these appeals are being disposed of as both involve common questions. These appeals are directed against the order dated 5.9.2000 in Complaint Nos. 38/99 and 39/99.

UNDISPUTABLY the appellant''s father Shri Dhanji Bhai Manek was the consumer of the respondent and had obtained electrical service connections under Service Nos. 73/09/000371 and 72/09/000371. The complainant/appellant is now utilising the said service connections and is thus a consumer of the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the said service connection was checked by the engineers of the respondent on 24.4.1998. Thereafter the additional electricity bill was sent to the appellant on 25.4.1998 demanding Rs. 26,452.64 which is challenged in Complaint No. 39/98 and another bill of Rs. 5,965/- was sent on 12.5.1999 which is the subject matter of challenge in Complaint No. 38/99. The allegations of the respondent electricity board were that there was an illegal connection in one of the phases of the meter resulting in the meter recording only the 1/3rd of the actual electricity consumption. The respondent thus, resisting the complaint that since there was theft of electricity due to illegal connection the additional bills as above were sent and amount therein was demanded, as per rules, from the complainant/appellant.

It appears that the main contention of the complainant/appellant was that the dispute regarding the meter should have been referred to the Electrical Inspector as laid down under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (1910 Act, hereafter for short). The District Forum however rejected the contention as above of the complainant/appellant and dismissed the complaint.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant assailed the bills additional sent by the respondent and reiterated the stand taken by him in the District Forum. It was strenuously submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of the allegations of wrong reading of the meter, the matter should have been referred to the Electrical Inspector as has been provided under Section 26(6) of the 1910 Act. It was submitted that without reference of dispute to the Electrical Inspector, additional demand could not have been raised by the respondent Electricity Board. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the dispute is not regarding any fault or defect in the meter but it was found that there was illegal connection by the complainant/appellant. Therefore, provisions relating to defect in the meter, under Section 26(6) of 1910 Act were not attracted. It was submitted that respondent was entitled to disconnect the electricity and to raise additional demands under Condition No. 31 of the General Conditions for Supply of Electricity Energy and Scale of Miscellaneous and General Charges.

WE have considered submissions as above. It is clear that the respondent never averred that there was any defect in the meter. It was alleged that due to illegal connection and tampering in the meter by the complainant and one phase of the meter was not functioning as a result of which the meter was not recording actual consumption of electricity. Thus Section 26(6) of the 1910 Act, which envisages references of the dispute regarding defect in the meter to the Electrical Inspector, is not applicable. Section 26(6) would apply only when any dispute arises regarding the defect in the meter. In case of defective meter, the dispute has to be referred to by either of the parties to Electrical Inspector. Section 26(6) of the 1910 Act, further provides the procedure which the Electrical Inspector would follow on reference to him of such disputes. However, in the instant case, as already noticed, the averments and allegations of the respondent, supported by the report of the Engineer of the respondents was that there was illegal connection and tampering with the meter. Therefore, the respondent Electricity Board was empowered to demand additional bill as also to disconnect the electric connection as per Condition No. 31(e) of the ''General Conditions for Supply of Electrical Energy''. The District Forum was, therefore, justified in holding so. We affirm the said findings. These appeals have no substances. They are accordingly dismissed. Appellant shall bear their own cost and pay that of the respondent which is quantified as Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) only for each of the appeals. Appeals dismissed.