PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH (PJS) SUB-DIVISION

THIS is an appeal by the Punjab State Electricity Board under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Forum, Mansa dated May 6, 1998 passed in Complaint Case No. 400 of 1997, whereby the opposite party Punjab State Electricity Board has been directed to pay costs Rs. 1,000/- and the bills for Rs. 1,01,572/- and Rs. 56,719/- relating to the Villages Kulrian and Andianwali have been cancelled.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Public Health, Punjab, Sub-Division, Budhlada, District Mansa had obtained electricity connection for water supply scheme at Villages Kulrian and Andianwali. The department had been paying the power charges from time to time. The complainant received two bills for Rs. 1,01,572/- and Rs. 56,719/- related to electricity charges of water supply scheme at Villages Kulrian and Andianwali respectively. Both these bills were required to be paid by 31.1.1997. The complainant challenged the legality and validity of both these bills. On inquiry, the complainant was informed that the bill of Rs. 1,01,572/- related to the period 14.12.1989 till the month of November for Village Kulrian whereas the bill for Rs. 56,719/- related to the period 4/94 to 4/95 for Village Andianwali. The complainant challenged that no recovery of the amounts could be affected as the bills were beyond limitation. It was the duty of the opposite party to keep the meter installed by them at the premises of the consumer in a working/fit condition and replace the meters if they were found defective. The opposite parties did not replace the meters notwithstanding the complaints made to them for replacement of meters, the said meters being defective and not recording correct reading. The opposite parties threatened the complainant for disconnection of the electric supply in case of non-payment of the amount of the aforesaid bills. The complainant, therefore, had no option but to deposit of the amount of the said bills in order to retain the electric supply, to regulate the proper supply of water. The complainant had been operating motor for two hours a day because there was insufficient supply of electricity to the said villages. The complainant prayed for refund of amount deposited with the Electricity Board alongwith interest. The opposite parties in their written version averred that the complainant was duty bound to pay the impugned bills of Rs. 1,01,569/- and Rs. 56,719/- relating to the power charges. The bills were issued as per instructions and rules of the Punjab State Electricity Board. The meter for the water supply scheme at Village Kulrian was installed on 14.11.1989 and it was changed on 19.11.1993. The said meter was wrongly reported as defective whereas the fact was that the said meter was recording correct reading as per consumption of electricity. Therefore, the complainant was liable to pay electricity charges as per reading of the meter whereas the charges were being received on average basis. The opposite parties, therefore, raised a bill for Rs. 1,01,572/- being the difference of electricity charges as per meter reading and the amount recovered from the complainant on average basis. The complainant was informed accordingly vide Registered Notice No. 1235 dated 19.8.1996 that as per actual consumption of electricity a sum of Rs. 91,582/- were due from the complainant on account of S.O.P. whereas a sum of Rs. 9,990/- worked out as electricity duty. So far as the electric connection given at Village Andianwali, the said connection was given on 29.8.1981 and at that time the sanctioned load was 22.940 KW. The electricity load was got increased to 41.590 KW by the complainant department w.e.f. 18.3.1988. Since the meter was not functioning and was defective, therefore, the complainant was being charged on average basis on the previously sanctioned load, whereas the charges should have been recovered on the basis of increased sanctioned load. The discrepancy was pointed out by the Audit Party. The complainant had also an electricity connection at water supply system at Village Bakshiwala and the demand of average charges on the increased sanctioned load of the connection of Village Andianwali was, therefore, raised against the complainant department as per consumption of electricity of the electric connection at Village Bakshiwala for the period 4/93 to 4/96. Thus, the balance payable remained Rs. 56,719/- from the complainant department relating to the electric connection at Village Andianwali. This demand was, therefore, under rules and regulation of the Board and was lawful. The meters of the electricity connections at Villages Andianwali and Kulrian could not be replaced because of shortage of meters with the opposite parties.

The parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents which resulted in passing the impugned order by the District Forum.

IN the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the Electricity Board has reiterated the stand taken by them before the District Forum. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent argued that there is no substance in the contention of the opposite parties that the meter installed at Village Kulrian was in perfect order and was giving correct reading. Obviously a dispute arises with regard to the correctness of the meter. The learned Counsel for the respondent invited our attention to the provisions of Section 26(6) of the INdian Electricity Act, 1910 where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter installed at the premises of the consumer is or is not correct. The matter is to be decided upon the application of the either party by an Electrical INspector and where the meter has, in the opinion of such INspector, ceased to be correct. Such INspector is to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer during such period not exceeding six months. It was incumbent on the Punjab State Electricity Board to remove the meter promptly and send it to the Chief Electrical INspector for test and thereafter on the submission of the report to act according to instructions in the matter of charging the complainant. Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act reads as under : "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 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 has been correct; but save, as aforesaid, the register of the meter, shall, in the absence of fraud, the conclusive proof of such amount or quantity : Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical INspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days'' notice of his intention so to do."

Similar matter came up before Hon''ble National Commission in Y.N. Gupta v. DESU, I (1993) CPJ 25 (NC). In para 14,the Hon''ble National Commission observed as under : "The meter belongs to DESU, and meter rent has been claimed in the bill. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the DESU to maintain them in good condition. A mere scrutiny of the meter readings would have shown that the bills reflected consumption in five digits instead of four. Evidently the bills were prepared most casually and indifferently and even elementary care was not exercised to see that the meters were malfunctioning. This constitutes deficiency in service as it inevitably leads to wrong bills against the consumers."

THE Board was not competent to send supplementary bills to the complainant department, more particularly when the meter stopped functioning. THE case in hand is fully covered by ratio of the decisions referred to above and we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Electricity Board. THEre was deficiency in rendering service and the complainant department was forced to pay bills which was illegally raised. In the case in hand, the aforesaid provision was not complied with. In Balwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 2393, it has been observed that if there is a dispute as to proper functioning of the meter or check meter or other Electrical Inspector, upon entering the reference would determine the dispute as to the proper functioning of the meter and other electrical apparatus and in the event of Electrical Inspector comes to the findings that the meter ceased to be correct, he is to determine the quantum of the electricity consumed during the statutory period referred to in Sub-section (6) and the consumer has the liability to pay the estimated amount indicated by the Electrical Inspector. As per law down as referred to above, the Electricity Board was required to refer the dispute of defective meter to the Electrical Inspector which was not done. The opposite party cannot assume the statutory powers and functions of the Electrical Inspector. In the case of Electric Meter installed at Village Andianwali, the opposite party did not refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector under the provision as referred to above. Therefore, the action of the opposite party is not sustainable in law. The bill for Rs. 56,719/- is quashed. The same may be referred to the Electrical Inspector for decision. We direct that the amount deposited by the complainant be adjusted with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit till the date of payment, on the submission of decision by the Electrical Inspector. The Electrical Inspector will complete the enquiry and decide the case within 90 days.

WITH regard to the payment of the meter at Village Kulrian, the opposite party stated that the meter was installed on 14.11.1989 and it was changed on 19.11.1993. The Counsel for the opposite party has failed to show the signature of the representative of the complainant department on the report sent by S.D.O., Electricity Board on 18.11.1993, vide this letter dated 19.8.1996, that the meter was changed with meter reading. Therefore, bill for Rs. 1,01,572/- is hereby quashed. amount deposited by the complainant department be refunded with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit till the date of payment. This order be complied with 60 days.

FOR the reasons recorded above, the order of the District FORum is modified as referred to above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Order modified.