PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs NAVDEEP THEATRES (P) LTD.

THIS is an appeal by the PSEB against the order dated 4.8.2000 of District Forum, Amritsar by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed in the following terms: "We accept the complaint with costs of Rs. 1,000 and set aside the impugned memo dated 10.8.1999. Opposite party is directed to refund the deposited amount with 15% p.a. interest from date of deposit till date of payment after deducting minimum charges as per sanctioned load. Opposite party shall also not recover meter rent as provided under Section 26(2) of the Indian Electricity Act. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of order; failing which action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, will be taken. Meter be replaced immediately to avoid loss to the PSEB, if not already changed.

THE facts which are not in dispute may be noticed. Navdeep THEatres, complainant has an electricity connection with sanctioned load capacity of 175 KW. Flying Squad went to the premises on 23.6.1998 and found that the meter was burnt. Meter Change Order was issued on 24.6.1998. For the months of June and July, 1998, bill was issued to the complainant on average basis for 12000 units and 12400 units respectively. THE complainant challenged the memo No. 3152 dated 10.8.1999 issued by the PSEB in the sum of Rs. 72,644 on the ground that the average consumption has been wrongly taken as 25100 whereas it should have been 12400. THE complainant deposited Rs. 24,215 with the opposite party as 1/3rd of the total amount for referring the dispute to Disputes Settlement Committee. Grievance of the complainant made was that opposite party wrongly issued the memo of Rs. 72,644 without getting adjudication from Chief Electrical Inspector. On these allegations, complaint was filed which has been allowed in the terms mentioned above. Hence the present appeal by Electricity Board.

It was nowhere disputed that the Flying Squad found the meter to be burnt. As per the regulations of Electricity Board in such cases before the matter is replaced for the interregnum period the bills are to be issued on average basis and one of the methods provided is that the bill can be raised which is equal to the bill for the same month of the previous year. The present regulation to that effect is 73.1.2. The same reads as under: ".....As regards charging the consumer for the period the meter remained inoperative, average consumption of last four to six months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher of the two, shall be charged on provisional basis."

THE case of the Electricity Board was that the bills on average consumption of 12000 units and 12400 units were inadvertently issued on the basis of consumption for the last three months where if the average was taken for the same period of previous years, it was more and, therefore, a revised bill on average consumption of 25100 units was sent to the complainant. We have been shown the consumption for the same period of the previous year which is 25100. We do not find any thing wrong that if by mistake the bill is raised by the PSEB, the same cannot be rectified. THE only thing which is to be seen is- is there any mistake or not? From the consumption of the same period of previous year, we find that there was a factual mistake committed by PSEB which necessitated the issuance of revised bill for the period of June and July, 1990. Coming to the question as to whether such bill on average basis could be issued without the matter getting adjudicated from Chief Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act. The matter is to be referred to Chief Electrical Inspector in case there is a dispute of raising of bill when the meter is defective. In this case, the meter admittedly was found burnt for which there is specific regulation as to how for the interregnum period before the replacement of the meter, the bills are to be raised.

WE find that the approach of the District Forum was not correct when it allowed the complaint as aforesaid. At the behest of repetition, it may be observed that Chief Electrical Inspector would only come in when the question of incorrect or faulty meter is to be decided. As observed above, the meter is question was not faulty or defective but it was found burnt. For the foregoing reasons, we accept this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. However, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.