PRITAM SINGH BRAR vs Chandigarh Electricity Depart -Ment

THIS appeal has been directed by the appellant against order dated 19.11.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby complaint of the appellant was partly accepted and it was held that the Chandigarh Electricity Department (respondent No. 1) had illegally raised the demand on the basis of average consumption as it failed to follow the procedure in case of meter found dead, stop or defective. However, no relief was granted with regard to the amount of compensation charges and charges for excess connected load as the complainant could not substantiate his case.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Sh. Sudershan Goel s/o Sh. R.R. Goel was the owner of SCF No. 179, Sector -7 -C, Chandigarh. The appellant purchased it through agreement to sell and power of attorney dated 8.4.2002, and later on, the lease deed was transferred in his name on 18.3.2003. It was also got mentioned in the agreement to sell that all the previous dues of electricity and other departments would be paid by the seller, and further, he had paid all the dues of the Electricity Department till March, 2002. After its purchase, the premises remained locked for about eight months and the appellant used to receive the monthly bill of Rs. 3,000 as minimum charges. However, in the month of August, 2002 he received bill No. 99994 for Rs. 24,697, which was highly exaggerated. On inquiry, he came to know that the meter in the premises remained dead stop during the period, May, 1995 to September, 1996, and the bills during the said period, had been calculated on the basis of average taken from November, 1994 to May, 1995, which was to the tune of Rs. 11,174 and accordingly the amount was added in the bill. It was next averred that the department was not competent to recover the amount from him, since, it related to a period of 6 1/2 years back and limitation to recover it had already expired and no notice for recovery of the amount was served upon him earlier. He had also approached the Dispute Settlement Committee of the department on 19.9.2002 for settling the dispute but his request was rejected vide order dated 9.6.2003.

IT was further averred that the flying squad of the Electricity Department raided his premises on 19.9.2003 and without informing him, disconnected the electric supply and removed the meter and issued notice to him that the seals fixed on the meter were fake, and as it was a case of theft of energy, he was asked to pay penalty charges.

HE claimed that the said act of respondent No. 1 was illegal because he had been regularly making payment of the amount of Rs. 15,000 per month, and he never indulged in the theft of energy. Therefore, he prayed that he could not be fastened with the liability of the previous owner, and further, he had not committed any theft, so, he was not liable to pay any arrears of electricity charges and thus, the respondent No. 1 had committed deficiency in service and the complaint be accepted. Respondent No. 1 filed reply and controverted the allegations of the appellant and stated that Sh. Pritam Singh was not the consumer of the department, on the other hand Sh. Sudershan Goel was the consumer and he had been charged in Account No. 0709/81816 RA and the sum of Rs. 11,174 was charged by the audit party for the period 21.5.1995 to 22.9.1996, being meter of the consumer remained dead stop. Hence, the bill issued during the period August, 2002, also included the amount of Rs. 11,174 besides the amount of current bill of Rs. 15,925 for which demand was made from the consumer. It also stated that the enforcement wing of the department checked the premises of the complainant on 19.9.2003, and as per its report, all the M and T seals of the electricity meter were found fake/tampered. Since, it was a case of theft of energy, so, enforcement wing removed the meter and packed the same in card board box and disconnected the supply. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 32,764 was imposed penalty as per rules, and there was no deficiency in service on the part of department.

RESPONDENT No. 2 filed reply and stated that the appellant had made queries from the department and was satisfied that there were no pending dues against him (the previous owner), so, no liability could be fastened on him after the transaction was completed. He further stated that neither the appellant nor the Electricity Department informed him about the liability towards arrears of the electricity department. He also stated that by making part payment of Rs. 16,000 for restoration of electricity, the appellant had acquiesced his liability to the Electricity Department to make payment.

PARTIES led their evidence in the shape of affidavits. After hearing Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the District Consumer Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh, vide order dated 19.11.2004, partly accepted the complaint, as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.

WE have heard Mr. Baldev K. Goyal, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. C.D. Ranga, District Attorney for respondent No. 1, Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and carefully gone through the file. Regulation No. 73.1.1 of the Sales Regulations, reads as under: ''Dead stop or Burnt Meter On receipt of a report regarding a meter becoming dead stop or burnt, it should be promptly replaced and necessary inquiries conducted. The meter along with the report should be forwarded to ME Lab for further action.'' Admittedly, the meter belongs to O.P. and it was their duty to replace the meter, in case they thought that the meter was defective/dead stop. In case, the meter was defective or dead stop, it was obligatory for O.P. to refer the meter to the Chief Electrical Inspector, for his decision, who alone is competent to give his finding regarding the liability of the consumer to pay charges and this liability cannot be extended beyond six months.

IN this connection, we may reproduce Sections 26(1) and 26(6) of the Electricity Act. The same are as follows: Section 26(1) ''In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the amount of energy supplied to a consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter, and the licensee shall, if required by the consumer, cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter.'' Section 26 (6) ''Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in Sub -section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector, and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount of quantity.''

THEREFORE , when provision of Sales Regulation is read with Sub -sections 26(1) and 26(6) of the Electricity Act, then it is clear that if there is a dispute regarding correctness of the meter, that is to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon application made by either of the parties. It is for the Electrical Inspector to determine whether the meter is correct or not. If Inspector is of the opinion that the meter is not correct, he shall estimate energy supplied to the consumer during the period not exceeding six months and direct the consumer to pay the same. In the instant case, respondent No. 1 alleged that the meter was dead stop during the period May, 1995 to September, 1996, and as such, the appellant had been charged Rs. 11,174 on the basis of consumption taken from the bills of November, 1994 to May, 1995. This amount had been added in the bill on the basis of audit report. Certainly, the procedure has not been followed by the department, as stated above. Even if, the procedure had been followed and the meter had been referred to the Electrical Inspector, then also appellant could have been charged only for six months and not beyond that, but since the procedure has not been followed, and there is no report that the meter remained dead stop during the period, simply on the basis of report of audit party, the appellant cannot be fastened with any liability, including that of six months period. Therefore, we hold that the Electricity Department was not competent to charge the appellant even on the basis of average consumption for the period of six months, on the basis of alleged dead stop meter, as due procedure has not been followed. However, the appellant would be liable to pay the amount of current charges of Rs. ,925 included in the bill issued during August, 2002, but he would not be liable to pay Rs. 11,174. 15 Further, case of the department is that the Enforcement Wing of the Electricity Department checked the premises of the consumer on 19.9.2003 and as per report ECR No. 1/168 dated 19.9.2003 (Annexure R -1), all M & T seals were found fake/tampered, and since, this was a case of theft of energy, Enforcement Wing removed the meter and packed the same in card board box and disconnected the supply, and an amount of Rs. 32,764 was charged as per rules of the department. There is no affidavit of any member of the Enforcement Wing who had checked the premises of the appellant on 19.9.2003 to assert that there were fake/tampered seals on the electricity meter. According to the respondent, the meter was removed by the Electricity department officials and the same was packed in the card board box and supply was Disconnected. The seals on the meter were not got checked from the M & T Seals Department or any expert and were not compared with the impression of the seals retained in the department to prove that the same were fake. From the mere fact that the seals were fake or tampered, it cannot be said that there was theft of electricity. The department has not led evidence to prove that earlier in the corresponding period of the previous year, the consumer received of higher amount bills, but all of sudden the bill of consumer became low as the seals were fake or tampered with and as such it was a case of theft of electricity energy. The learned Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 pleaded that according to Notification of the Chandigarh Administration published in the Extraordinary Gazette dated 30th September, 2002, if M & T seals are found broken or tampered, it would be treated as a theft case. It is true that if the seals are broken or tampered, prima facie it will be treated as a theft case. But in the present case alleged fake seals were not got tested from the laboratory or M & T Seals Department where impression of the original seals are kept to show that the seals were fake. There is no evidence that when the Enforcement Wing of the Electricity Department raided the premises of the appellant, theft was being committed by fixing some instrument. So, in our opinion, it cannot be treated as a case of theft of energy.

HOWEVER , it is further stated that the connected load was detected at the time of checking to be 19.720 KW against the sanctioned load of 11.040 KW. Representative of the appellant was also present when the load was checked. The checking report Annexure A -III is duly signed by the representative of the appellant. It shows unauthorised load of 8.680 KW. For this unauthorised load the appellant has been charged of Rs. 32,674 in all, including Rs. 6,750 on account of unauthorised extension load of 8.680 KW.

THE Engineering Department of Chandigarh Administration, vide order dated 4.1.1999 has streamlined for working out suitable compensation amount on flat rate per KW basis in established theft cases for various categories of consumers, as one time charge without any ceiling, and according to it, for a load of 20 KW, the amount chargeable is Rs. 1,000 per KW. Since, it has already held that no established case of theft is made out against the appellant, so, he is not liable to pay charges @ Rs. 1,000 per KW. Thus, the compensation amount of Rs. 26,014 is not tenable and the same is quashed. However, appellant is liable to pay Rs. 6,750 for unauthorised load @ Rs. 750 per KW. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay Rs. 11,174 on account of charges for dead stop meter during the period May, 1995 to September, 1996 and further he is not liable to pay Rs. 26,014 on account of alleged established theft of energy. But he is liable to pay remaining amount claimed by the department. Consequently, the appeal is accepted partly, as indicated above, along with costs of Rs. 550. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal partly allowed.