PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs RAM PROCESSOR MERRAKOT ROAD

BRIEF facts taken from the record are that electric connection was installed in the factory premises of the complainant. His factory premises was inspected by the Flying Squad of the opposite party on 31.10.1996 and it was found that the meter was running slow by 24.82%. The opposite party started charging bills 24.82% in excess to the actual record consumption. Complainant started making payments in excess to the extent of 24.82% under threat of disconnection of electric connection. Alleged inflated bills to the extent of 24.82% from October, 1996 to February, 1997 i.e. uptil the period when another meter was installed in the factory of the complainant by the opposite party. Opposite party also demanded Rs. 12,757/- vide bill dated 12.2.1997 payable by 27.2.1997 in addition to the bill for actual consumption on account of average of six months from the date of inspection i.e. 31.10.1996. That amount was also paid by the complainant to avoid disconnection.

NEW meter installed in the factory premises of the complainant in the month of February, 1997 also stopped recording consumption. Opposite party was informed by the complainant with regard to the defective meter vide letter dated 7.8.1997. Opposite party did not care to set the meter right or replace it. Again on 4.9.1997, Flying Squad of the opposite party inspected the factory premises of the complainant. Officials of the opposite party issued a bill dated 10.9.1997 for Rs. 68,181/- payable by 25.9.1997 on average basis due to defective meter. The opposite party also threatened to disconnect the electric connection if the above said amount was not deposited. The complainant, accordingly, deposited Rs. 68,181/- with the opposite party vide receipt dated 25.9.1997. The complainant disputed the validity of the above said bill by writing a letter to the opposite party No. 3 i.e. S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, Amritsar. The complainant also deposited Rs. 150/- on 25.9.1997 and challenged the correctness of the bill dated 10.9.1997 vide which demand of Rs. 68,181/- had been raised. Although the matter was referred to the Disputes Settlement Committee, dispute was not settled. The Disputes Settlement Committee directed the complainant to deposit another amount of Rs.79,049/- on account of average bill difference for the period during which the meter remained defective. This amount of Rs. 79,049/- was added in the bill dated 12.6.1998 payable by 24.6.1998. The complainant had gone to Superintending Engineer who forwarded his case to the Senior Executive Engineer. Sr. XEN allowed the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 79,049/- in six instalments vide order dated 24.6.1998. It has been alleged that the complainant came to know from the office of the opposite party that the amount of Rs. 79,049/- had been demanded from the complainant for the period from May, 1996 to November, 1998 for which period the average amount of bill had already been paid by the complainant. The complainant did not accept the validity of the above mentioned three bills of Rs. 12,757/-, Rs. 68,181/- and Rs. 79,049/-. Out of Rs. 79,049/-, the complainant had deposited Rs. 24,708/- alongwith current consumption charges of Rs. 11,534/-. By filing the complaint before the District Forum, following reliefs were asked for : (1) Direction to the opposite party to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 12,757/-, Rs. 68,181/- and Rs. 24,708/- with interest @ 18% p.a. (2) Cost of litigation Rs. 6,000/-. (3) Any other relief. In the written reply filed by the opposite party, it was admitted that Sr. XEN, Flying Squad had checked the connection of the complainant on 31.10.1996 wherein he found that the meter of the complainant was running slow by 24.82% and as such additional amount of Rs. 12,757/- was recovered from the complainant from 5/96 to 10/96 on account of slowness of the meter. The new meter installed in the factory premises of the complainant in the month of February, 1997 stopped recording consumption due to the defect in the meter. Sr. XEN, Flying Squad checked the meter on the information given by the S.D.O. and he found that the meter was defective. It was also admitted that bill of Rs. 28,176/- was issued in the month of 9/97. That bill was on the basis of average consumption for the months of 7/97, 8/97 and 9/97 issued on the basis of consumption recorded for the months of 4/97 to 6/97 and as such an additional amount of Rs. 68,181/- was imposed in the month of 9/97 in which Rs. 28,176/- was the average bill and remaining amount of Rs. 40,005/- was the current consumption. It was also admitted by the opposite party that the complainant had deposited bill of 9/97 of Rs. 68,181/- and challenged fee of Rs. 150/- for challenging the correctness of the meter. It is also submitted in the reply that the complainant had challenged the validity of the bill before Disputes Settlement Committee who had ordered to overhaul the account of the complainant as per Circular No. 14/96. It was also admitted by the opposite party that a bill in the month of 6/98 for Rs. 79,049/- was issued by the opposite party to the complainant because the Sr. XEN, Flying Squad had checked the connection of the complainant on 31.10.1996 and had found the meter running slow by 24.82%. It was then stated in the reply that the account of the complainant was overhauled again and the opposite party had charged consumption of corresponding months of 5/96 to 11/96 of Rs. 75,799/- + Rs. 3,250/- as difference of tariffs amounting to a total of Rs. 79,049/- which amount was deposited by the complainant. Ultimately a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs was made.

After hearing the arguments and going through the documents on the file, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum, Amritsar) set aside the impugned bill of Rs. 68,181/- and Rs. 79,049/-. It was held by the District Forum that the opposite party was, however, entitled to recover minimum charges of the disputed period of the demand raised minus the rent of the meter. District Forum also directed the opposite party to refund the deposited amount to the complainant with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of recovery. It was also ordered by the District Forum that the opposite party was at liberty to recover the excess amount, if any, after compliance of provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. Ultimately, the complaint was allowed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their help.

THE District Forum has set-aside the impugned bills for the electricity alleged to have been consumed by the complainant mainly on the ground that before issuance of the impugned bills provisions contained in Instructions Nos. 109, 110 and 115 of the Sales Manual, Clause 14-A of the Abridged Condition of Supply and Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 were not complied with by the opposite party. From the reading of the judgment and going through the record of the case, we find force in the reasoning of the District Forum so far as non-observance of the provisions, mentioned above, by the opposite party is concerned.

IT is not disputed that the meter installed in the factory premises of the complainant was found recording less consumption twice and it was found dead by the Flying Squad of the opposite party on 4.9.1997 and on the basis of such detection by the Flying Squad the electricity consumption bill for Rs. 68,181/- in the month 9/97 was issued; out of which Rs. 28,176/- was based on the average taken out and the remaining amount of Rs. 40,005/- was on the basis of current consumption; totalling Rs. 68,181/-. IT is not found mention anywhere by the opposite party that after 4.9.1997 when the Flying Squad found the meter dead, the defective meter was changed by the opposite party. Instruction No. 109 of the Sales Manual provides as under : "If a meter is reported to be dead, stop, damaged or burnt, it is necessary that thorough and detailed enquiry is required to be made."

Similarly, Instruction No. 115 of the Sales Manual provides as under : "On receipt of a report regarding a meter becoming dead, stop or burnt, it should be immediately replaced and necessary inquiry conducted. Meter alongwith the report should be forwarded to the XEN/ME for further action."

The District Forum was right in observing that the XEN should have forwarded the meter with his report to the XEN/ME for testing and necessary action. Neither any detailed enquiry was made by the XEN of the Flying Squad nor he did comply with the provisions of Instruction No. 115. Although the meter was required to be replaced immediately, but it had not been replaced at all. Nothing was done by the opposite party even though the complainant had deposited the challenged fee of Rs. 150/- with the opposite party. No thorough and detailed enquiry was made as per Instruction No. 109 of the Sales Manual also. Though the dispute was referred to the Disputes Settlement Committee regarding the impugned penalty of Rs. 68,181/- imposed on the basis of inspection done by the XEN, Flying Squad on 4.9.1997, an additional amount of penalty/compensation of Rs. 79,049/- was ordered to be recovered from the complainant by the Disputes Settlement Committee. No basis for such recovery was given by the Disputes Settlement Committee. It may also be added that before raising the impugned demand on checking by the Flying Squad on 4.9.1997, check meter was not installed in the factory premises of the complainant as per requirement of Instruction No. 113, Sub-clause (iii). It was not tested from the ME Lab. after depositing the fee nor meter had been replaced. Admittedly, the opposite party had found the meter running slow to the extent of 24.82% on 31.10.1996 by the Sr. XEN, Flying Squad and penalty of Rs. 12,157/- was imposed for six months from 5/96 to 10/96 and this amount was deposited by the complainant. It is also a fact that the meter was found defective by the Sr. XEN, Flying Squad on 4/97. If the meter was found defective then the opposite party should have observed the law laid down under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act Instruction No. 110 of the Sales Manual and Clause 14-A of the Abridged Condition of Supply, referred to above. Clause 14-A of the Abridged Condition of Supply provides that a correct meter should be installed, maintained and sealed by the Board at each point of supply at the premises of a consumer. Instruction No. 110 of the Sales Manual provides that it was the responsibility of the opposite party for installing and maintaining a correct meter. AE/AEE(DS) is required to take particular care to see that every meter before it is installed had been tested by the XEN, ME and it continued to operate correctly. It is also provided therein that if the meter becomes inoperative and inaccurate, no rental should be recovered for the period for which the meter remained inaccurate or inoperative. If the opposite party had found that the meter was faulty, defective or running slow as stated in the written reply and deposed by the XEN, it could not have issued impugned bills charging the amount mentioned therein. The impugned bills were rightly set aside by the District Forum as Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act has also been violated by the opposite party. Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act provides as under : "Where any difference of dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to Sub-section (I) is not correct, the matter shall be decided upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector and where meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector is incorrect, such an Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or electrical quantity contained during such time, not exceeding six months."

READING of the above section makes it quite clear that in case of any dispute between the parties as to whether the meter was giving correct reading or not, the dispute had to be decided by the Electrical Inspector on the application made by either of the two parties and it was the duty of the Inspector to estimate the amount and to calculate the quantity of energy consumed by the consumer during the period not exceeding six months. In these circumstances, the opposite party was not competent to charge anything without getting the matter adjudicated from the Chief Electrical Inspector. The Chief Electrical Inspector is to decide whether or not the reading from the disputed meter was correct and accurate or whether the meter was faulty or had not been giving correct reading. This reasoning finds support from the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in M.P.E.B. & Ors. v. Imanta Bhai, AIR 1998 Supreme Court page 71.

IT has also been held by the Hon''ble Madhya Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in Baboo Lal v. N.S. Yadav, II (1994) CPJ Page 97, that the demand of additional amount for slow running of electrical meter is not justified without getting the dispute settled from the Electrical Inspector of the Board on the ground of the defective meter. IT has also been held in Baboo Lal''s case (supra) that where the Electricity Board fails to refer the dispute first to the Electrical Inspector before raising additional amount on the ground of defective meter, it amounts to deficiency in service. Section 26(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 also provides as under : "Where the consumer so enters into an agreement for the hire of a meter, the licensee shall keep the meter correct, and, in default of his doing so, the consumer shall, for so long as the default continues, cease to be liable to pay for the hire of the meter."

Hon''ble Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Electricity Board & Anr. v. Topassa, I 1991 Civil Court Cases page 472, has gone to the extent of holding as under : "In case of faulty meter, Electrical Inspector is to determine the dispute and in case of under recording Board to raise the dispute before Electrical Inspector and in case of over recording consumer being the affected party, should raise the dispute-one dispute is raised the modification of the bill should await the decision of the Inspector."

According to the Hon''ble Karnataka High Court, duty was cast upon the Electricity Board to raise the dispute by referring the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector. When such dispute is raised, it becomes the duty of the Inspector to estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer during the disputed period not exceeding six months. It is only after the finding is given by the Chief Electrical Inspector that the Board could proceed to prepare the Supplementary bill.

We, thus, hold that the action of the opposite party in preparing and issuing the impugned bills to the complainant is not in accordance with law as stated above. To that extent we uphold the order of the District Forum; but we set aside the order of the District Forum vide which impugned bills have been set aside and a direction has been given to the opposite party to refund to the complainant the amount comprising the disputed bills with 15% interest per annum from the date of deposit till the date of recovery. The direction to the opposite party shall now be as under : The opposite party is directed to take action in accordance with provisions of law as stated above i.e. the dispute shall be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector. After complying with the relevant provisions of law, the opposite party shall be competent to recover anything due from the complainant in accordance with law. With the above said modification, the appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.