PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs KRISHAN LAL GARG

DR. Krishan Lal Garg respondent was having an electric connection bearing account No. MD-34/0051. The said meter was burnt in June 1998. He had given intimation to the appellants and also deposited a sum of Rs. 335 as costs of the burnt meter vide receipt dated 3. 7. 1998. Thereafter, the appellants started charging the electricity bills on average basis which were being paid by the respondent regularly. Uptil November 1999 the electricity bill used to be charged on average basis for 478 units. However, from January 2000 the appellants started charging average on the basis of 572 units. From March 2000 they started charging 800 units as average basis. It was increased to 900 units thereafter. In all the appellants had charged Rs. 12,096 in excess from the respondent for the period from March 2000 to September 2001.

IT was further pleaded that the said meter was checked by the Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement, Muktsar on 5. 11. 1999 and even as per his own report the electric meter was burnt. In spite of that the appellants did not change the electric meter. Again the electric meter of the respondent was checked by the Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement, Moga on 23. 10. 2001. He also reported that the electric meter was burnt. It was further pleaded that the appellants issued demand notice dated 25. 10. 2001 for an amount of Rs. 45,409 for the period from September 1998 to September 2001 without giving any proper details and on the basis of the checking report of Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement, Moga dated 23. 10. 2001. The said demand was illegal. However, to avoid disconnection of electric connection the respondent deposited the amount of Rs. 45,409 under protest on 2. 11. 2001. Hence the respondent filed a complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short "district Forum") claiming the refund of the amount of Rs. 45,409 and for the refund of Rs. 12,096 charged in excess from March 2000 to September 2001. The amount of Rs. 1 lac as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs. 5,000 as costs were also claimed.

The appellants filed the reply. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was admitted that the respondent was having electric connection bearing account No. MD-34/0051. It was pleaded that the consumption of electricity was recorded in July 1998 to be 1322 units. This was prior to the burning of the electric meter. Half of the cost of the burnt meter was deposited by the respondent. It was admitted that the electricity bill was being charged on average basis but it was not charged as per Circular No. 13/96 which authorized the appellants to charge the consumption on the basis of previous bi-monthly average which was higher. In fact, the average of earlier units from November 1999, January 2000 and March 2000 to September 2001 was not based on earlier consumption and load factor. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 45,409 was charged as per average which was based on previous consumption and load factor. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

THE respondent produced his affidavit as Ex. A-1 and also proved documents Ex. A-2 to Ex. A-27. The appellants produced the affidavit of Shri Gulzar Singh Gill, Assistant Executive Engineer as Ex. R-1 and documents Ex. R- 2 to Ex. R-7 were also proved. On the basis of this evidence the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 1. 8. 2002 accepted the complaint with costs of Rs. 1,000 and set aside the demand notice for an amount of Rs. 45,409 dated 25. 10. 2001. The appellants were directed to refund this amount with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

HENCE the appeal. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that as per Circular No. 13/96 (Ex. R-4) the appellants were entitled to charge the respondent for the period the meter remained inoperative on the basis of average consumption of the last three or six months or the average consumption of the same month of the previous year whichever is higher and, therefore, the bill was rightly issued by the appellants. This submission has been considered.

THE facts which have been proved on the file clearly reveal that the electric meter bearing account No. BD-34/0051 of the respondent was burnt in the month of June 1998. The respondent had given intimation to the appellants immediately and also deposited the price of the burnt meter to the tune of Rs. 335 vide receipt dated 3. 7. 1998. The appellants failed to take any action even when it was specifically brought to their notice that the electric meter of the respondent was burnt. Rather they started charging the electricity consumption on average basis. 478 units were taken as the average units and these were charged till November 1999. Thereafter, the average units were increased to 572 and these were charged upto January 2000. Thereafter, the average units were increased to 800 and were charged upto March 2000. Thereafter the average units were increased to 900 without any basis and were being charged from the respondent.

THE appellants failed to take action for replacing the electric meter when it was specifically brought to their notice on 3. 7. 1998 by the respondent that his electric meter was burnt. Even on 5. 12. 1999 the Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement, Muktsar had visited the spot and had reported that the electric meter was burnt still no action was taken by the appellants and the meter was not replaced. They continued charging the bill on average basis. It was only after 23. 10. 2001 when Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement, Moga visited the spot and he issued the demand notice for an amount of Rs. 45,409 on 25. 10. 2001 charging the amount for the period September 1998 to September 2001. The appellants have allegedly made the consumption of July 1998 to be the basis for raising the demand bill dated 25. 10. 2001. However, the bill of July 1998 has not been placed on the file. Therefore, the calculations made by the appellants for raising the demand of Rs. 45,409 cannot be sustained.

As per the version of the appellant the consumption of electricity in the month of July 1998 was 1322 units which was made the basis for issuance of the disputed bill for the period from September 1998 to September 2001. The respondent has alleged that the meter has burnt in the month of June 1998 and even the fee of the burnt meter was deposited by the respondent with the appellants on 3. 7. 1998. These facts have been admitted by the appellants. How could, therefore, there be the bill for 1322 units in the month of July 1998? If there was bill for 1322 units in the month of July 1998 the respondents must have paid it. The appellants have neither produced the bill for 1322 units for the month of July 1998 nor its payment receipt by the respondent. This clearly falsified the version of the appellants if there was any consumption noted of 1322 units in the month of July 1998 when the meter was already burnt in June 1998.

MOREOVER, the appellants have relied upon Circular No. 13/96 (Ex. R-4) but it does not support the contention of the appellants. It only lays down that the average consumption for the last three or six months can be made the basis for raising the demand or in the alternative the consumption of the same month of the previous year can be made the basis. In the present case, the appellants are allegedly making July 1998 as the basis for raising the calculations in October 2001 i. e. more than three years prior to the raising of the demand. This circular nowhere lays down that the bill of more than three years old period can be made the basis for raising the demand. This is a typical case in which the appellants themselves are most negligent in performing their duties and they have penalized the respondent for no fault of his.

IN view of the discussion held above, there is no illegality in the impugned order of the learned District Forum. Finding no merit in this appeal the same is dismissed. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of heavy pendency and non-availability of the requisite Benches and infrastructure in the State Commission, for which the State Government has already been requested. Appeal dismissed.