RADHEY SHYAM THAKURIA vs RAJASTHAN ELECTRICITY BOARD

BY this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act" herein) the unsuccessful complainant questions the correctness and legality of the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 477/89 by which the complaint was dismissed. The complainant had obtained an electric connection for running oil expeller. His consumer No. is 68. According to him he is regularly paying the charges according to the bills supplied to him from time to time. On 11.8.1989 the complainant received the bill for Rs. 9,246.14. According to him the bill was erroneous for his regular consumption as shown in the bill was 440 units. He made, enquiries. He was told that the electric charges were also included as the meter of the appellant was running slow. On 14.8.89 the opposite parties-respondents removed the meter from the premises. It was prayed that the bill relating to August, 1989 in which Rs. 9,246.14 have been additionally mentioned may be cancelled and a direction may be issued to the opposite parties not to realise this amount from him. It was prayed that Rs. 1,000/- may be awarded as compensation to the complainant from the opposite parties.

THE opposite parties submitted the version of the case contesting the complaint. It was stated by them that the consumption of the complainant/appellant was 1500-2000 units per months but from August, 1988 to June, 1989 the meter was running slow and did not record the correct reading of the electricity consumed. THE binder submitted a report to this effect. In accordance with the directions given by the audit party the consumptions for the months of July, June and May, 1988 average was taken and these charges were included in the bill in question or the period - August, 1988 to June, 1989 after giving credit for the amounts that had already been deposited. THE amounts deposited by the complainant in this regard were only Rs. 1246.14. It was alleged that from August, 1989 the meter was changed and thereafter the consumption recorded is 1500-2000 units every months. THE bill in question was in accordance with the Rules. It was stated that when the meter became defective, then in accordance with Condition 19 of Rajasthan State Electricity Board General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges Relating to Supply of Electricity hereinafter referred to as "the conditions" average of month could be charged. Photostat copy of the binder''s containing the meter reading record card was submitted alongwith the calculation paper how the figure of Rs. 9246.14 was arrived at. In support of the complaint affidavit of Shri Sita Ram was submitted which is dated 26.8.1989. Thereafter affidavit of Shri Radhey Shyam dated 3.12.90 was submitted. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the meter was running slow and that from the meter reading record card (consumption chart) produced before the District Forum it is clear that the consumption fell low during the period from August, 88 to June 89. Thereafter the meter was replaced and after tin replacement of the meter, it showed a rise. On the basis of this the District Forum opined that the meter was defective and therefore the additional charges sought to be recovered by the opposite parties for the period of August, 88 to June, 89 are correct and justified. Condition No. 19(c) reads as follows : "(c) Accuracy :Should there be a dispute regarding the accuracy of the meter/meters, notice thereof is to be given by either party to the other as the case may be, for its testing by the Board or the Electrical Inspector to Government of Rajasthan in accordance with Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In the case of the consumer giving such notice to the Board for the testing hereby the prescribed fee is to be deposited by him therewith. This fee shall be refunded to the consumer except in the case meter after test is found to be correct within the limits prescribed under the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. In the event of the meter being tested found to be incorrect, the cost of and all reasonable expenses incidental there to shall be met by the party to whom the meter belongs and the amount of the bill adjusted in accordance with the result of test taken with respect to the meter readings of the three months prior to the month in which the dispute has arisen, due regard being paid to the conditions of working, accuracy, etc. during the month under dispute, and during the previous 3 months. In the event of test being undertaken by the Electrical Inspection and the meter being found to be incorrect, the period during which the meter shall be deemed to have been incorrect and the amount of energy supplied to the consumer during the period shall be decided by the Electrical Inspector whose decision shall be final. The Board shall at any reasonable time and on informing the consumer of its intention have access to and be at liberty to inspect and test and for that purpose, if it thinks fit take off and remove any meter to its laboratory".

Condition No. 19(d)(vii) may also be noticed which is as under: "(vii) In the event of the meter being out of order for any reason during any month/months the consumption for that month/months will be formally determined on the basis of the average consumption over the preceding three months period and the bill for the month will be prepared accordingly and become payable by the consumer. In case, however, the meter becomes out of order within three months of releasing the connection, the consumption for the period (the defective meter remained on the premises) will be determined on the basis of the average consumption over the following three months alter the correct meter is installed".

It deals with the defective meter and according to the complainant no such information was communicated to him that the meter was defective. Condition No. 19(c) deals with testing of the meter and it is stated that extra charges can only charged against the consumer and recovered from him after the testing of the meter. The District Forum took both the conditions 19(b) & (c) into consideration. It opined that no testing of the meter was done as the complainant-appellant (consumer) did not make any request for it as according to the District Forum meter is required to be tested at the instance of the consumer. The other reason which the District Forum has given is that the terminal seal was broken. A perusal of the meter reading record card produced by the opposite parties does not show that the terminal seal was broken. However there is remark in the meter reading record card that the meter was running slow which is apparent from the record. The relevant reading is off 2.8.88. Previous to that in the months of June and July, 81 the consumptions were 1960, 1490 and 1960 respectively. After August, 1988 onwards the consumption fell low except for the month of September, 88 for which the consumption was 490 units. In April, 88 the consumption was 1970 units. The District Forum did not commit any error when it held that after August, 88 the consumption fell low and thereafter the meter was removed and it was replaced in the month of August, 89. Thus the meter remained slow for the period from August, 88 to June, 1989 could not record the correct reading according to actual consumption condition No. 19(c) of the conditions also provide for average consumption of the preceding three months viz. May, June & July, 1988. The average was taken and according to that the additional recovery of Rs. 9246.14 was sought in the bill pertaining to August, 1989.

HAVING carefully considered the order under appeal, we do not find any error in it. We affirm the order passed by the District Forum. The appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.