RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs ROSHAN LAL JAIN

AGAINST the order dated 2-7-1991 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in complaint Case No. 1320/90, the opposite party has filed this appeal.

THE complainant-respondent alleged that in his residential house No. 570, Golechha Bhawan, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur he has got 3 meters (1) 129818, (2) 855031 and (3) 53823. THE complainant has stated that the third meter i.e. 53823 and was not out of three meters he was consuming electricity from using the first two meters though they were in the working condition. It was submitted that the complainant has been paying the amount of the bills of meter No. 53823, as and when received. THE complainant has alleged that out of malice, the opposite party stopped one meter from December, 1988 to September, 1990 and sent the bill for Rs. 2,685.20 on the basis of average reading which he was asked to pay upto 3.12.1990 After receiving the said bill, the complainant-respondent approached the opposite party for checking and examining the said meters. THE opposite party got them examined and they were found in order i.e. in working condition. A request was made by the complainant to amend the bill of Rs. 2,685.20. But the opposite party gave directions to the complainant to deposit the amount of the said bill failing which the electric connection will be disconnected. THE complainant was asked to deposit the amount. THE complainant again made a request on 19.12.1990 but it was not heeded to and a threat was given to disconnect the electricity. THEreafter on 27.12.1990 the complainant filed a complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) before the District Forum, Jaipur stating that the opposite party-appellant is not entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 2,685.20 from the complainant on the basis of average consumption. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was claimed as damages. THE opposite party disconnected all the three connection on 28.31990 THE complainant filed an application for temporary mandatory injunction for immediate supply of electricity and for restraining the opposite party-appellant not to disconnect the electric supply till disposal of the complaint. THE District Forum allowed the application and rcconnection was given by the opposite party on 5-71991. The opposite party resisted the allegations. It is admitted that the complainant had three connections. But out of the 3 meters, one meter remained stopped from December 1988 to September 1990. That meter was changed from August 27,1990 and in place of old meter 10558399, new meter 11-53823 was installed i.e. in place of the stopped meter. After installing the new meter on 27-8-1990 checking was done on December, 1990 and it was found in order. It was pleaded on the basis of Condition No. 19(d)(vii) of the General Conditions of Supply and scale of Misc. Charges relating to the Supply of Electricity ("the Conditions" hereinafter) that when the meter is stopped or is out of order then during the period it remained stop or out of order preceding three month''s average consumption charges can be recovered. The meter remained stopped from December, 1988 to August, 1990 as it was changed on 27-8-90 and so of the previous meter, whatever consumption was made for the months of August, September, October, November, 1988 three months'' average was taken and on that basis a bill for Rs. 2,685.20 was sent to the complainant for payment. It was pleaded that as the meter in question was stopped, the bill was sent with the nil reading. It was only after the change of the meter and checking of the new meter, it was found that the old meter was stopped and the bill was sent according to the Conditions and if the complainant fails to make the deposit as demanded, his electric connection was liable to be disconnected. The complaint was filed before the District Forum on 27-12-1990. The complainant submitted a copy of the bill of December 1990 and also photo stat copy of the letter of AEN dated 14-12-1990.

The opposite party submitted affidavit of AEN in support of the reply. A calculation chart was submitted which has been marked as Annexure-1 alongwith copies of 3 bills and meter reading record card. Documents were also submitted in connection with the application for temporary injunction. A Commissioner was appointed by the District Forum who submitted his report dated 13.5.1991. It may be stated that the Commissioner was appointed to apprise the District Forum whether the electric connection has been disconnected or not and also to apprise the position to it. Arguments were heard by the District Forum on 21-5-1991. The impugned order was passed on 2-7-1991. The District Forum ordered that from the bill of December 1990 a sum of Rs. 248.47 should be made less and this demand raised by the opposite party is cancelled as the opposite party is not entitled to demand this amount from the complainant. It was further observed that if the complainant has not deposited a sum of Rs. 248.47 the complainant is liable to pay this amount and the opposite party is directed to amend the bill and as soon as the amount is deposited the opposite party shall restore electric connection within 7 days. A direction was given to the opposite party to install 3 meters immediately restoring the electric connection. It was stated that in case of deposit of Rs. 248.47 by the complainant if the opposite party within 7 days does not restore the electric connection, the opposite party will be liable to pay Rs. 500/- per day as compensation. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded as compensation to be paid within one month from the dale of the order failing which the opposite party will be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. It was also also ordered that no demand of reconnection will be made by the opposite party. It was further ordered that during the period the electric connection remained disconnected the complainant will not be liable to make any payment. The opposite party has filed this appeal.

ON behalf of the complainant-respondent learned Counsel Shri J.P. Saxena has submitted reply to the appeal. He stated that this reply may be treated as written arguments and he does not want to make any oral submissions. ON behalf of the appellant nobody appeared and, therefore, wc made resort to Rule 8(6) of the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987. We have carefully perused the memo of appeal, the order appealed against and the reply to the appeal submitted on behalf of the respondent. In the memo of appeal, objections were raised to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act. This ground taken in the appeal is not sustainable for, the opposite party rendered service to the complainant when it supplied electricity to him by charging electricity charges. It was next contended that the bill of December 1990 mentioning Rs. 2685.20 for the period December 1988 to August 1990 (September 1990 has wrongly been mentioned by inadvertence) was justified inasmuch as the meter remained stopped during those months and, therefore, average charges of August, September, October and November, 1988 in respect of the previous 3 months were taken and the bill was sent. In the reply to the appeal submitted on behalf of the complainant it is stated that the District Forum has considered the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced by them which show that it has wrongly been mentioned that the meter was stopped, for, in the two bills which had already been sent, the consumption shown was repeatedly nil. If the meters had stopped instead of showing consumption as nil, it would have been written that meter is stopped. It is correct that none of the meters remained stopped from December 1988 to September 1990. There is some error with respect to the month of September, 1990. Condition 19 deals with meters. 19(d) deals with Reading. Condition 19(d)(vii) which is material is as follows:- "19(d)(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 proceeding 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 after the correct meter is installed."

A perusal of it shows that it applies in the event of the meter being out of order for any reason during any month/months the consumption for that month or months will be formerly determined on the basis of the average consumption over the preceding 3 months and bills for the months prepared accordingly and become payable by the consumer. A perusal of the meter reading card shows that consumption shown is nil in the months of January, March, May, July and September, 1990. The meters in question were not out of order. 19(d)(vii) of the Conditions does not apply. There was no consumption of meter No. 129881 and 855031 and so consumption shown was nil. Condition 19(d)(vii) is not attracted in this case. Sec. 26(5) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is not attracted to this case as it relates to the difference or dispute about meter as to whether it is correct or incorrect. In this case there was no such dispute existed for in the bills in regard to consumption nil is mentioned. Nowhere in the bills in question a note has been given about the incorrectness of the bills. The electric connection was disconnected on 28-3 -1991. The District Forum passed the order on 2-7-1991. It was stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that electric connection had already been provided to the respondent (See order sheet of the appeal dated 18-7-1991). Thus the order passed by the District Forum for providing the electric connection to the complainant was complied with. The District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the complainant. It may be stated that the electric connection was disconnected on 28-3-1991 during the pendency of the complainant. The Commissioner has reported that when he inspected the site on 13-5-1991 three meters were not there. The electric connection was restored after the passing of the order by the District Forum. It has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the complainant stating that the complainant had remained without electricity for the months of May and June and his children had to remain without studied and so a sum of Rs. 1,000/- should be awarded as compensation. It was stated in the memo of appeal that the complainant had only claimed a sum of Rs. 500/- as compensation in para 10(d) of the complaint and, therefore, Rs. 1,000/- could not be awarded. The electric connection was disconnected on 28-3-1991 during the pendency of the complaint and it was restored by the order of the District Forum which was passed on 2-7-1991. It is true that the complainant had not led any evidence in this connection but it has been held by the National Commission in Smt. Kailash Kumari v. Prop. Shankar & Company 1991 (1) CPR 107 that where it is practically impossible to produce tangible evidence equivalent of the inconvenience the mental suffering etc. caused to the petitioner it is the duty of the concerned Redressal Forum to assess and determine in the light of all the evidence available in the case what amount would be reasonable to award to the petitioner for the inconvenience, menial agony etc. caused to the complainant on account of the negligence of the opposite party. The complainant has claimed Rs. 5,00/- as compensation. There is no doubt in our mind that service rendered by the opposite party when it sent the bill for the month of December, 1988 to September 1990 for Rs. 2685.20 on the basis of average reading to be paid upto 3-12-1990 suffered from deficiency as envisaged by Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Act. We are of opinion that the complainant should be awarded Rs. 500/- as compensation instead of Rs. 1,000/- as awarded by the District Forum, Jaipur. It needs to be mentioned that the District Forum, Jaipur has given the directions mentioned hereinabove. It is well settled that the Redressal Forums established under the Act can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated under Sec. 14(1) of the Act and not beyond that. The directions given by the District Forum are not contemplated by the Act. However, the matter need not be pursued further as electric connection has already been restored as stated above.

IT follows from the above discussions that the relief of restoring of the electric connection of the complainant granted by the District Forum has already been complied with. The electric connection was restored to the complainant in pursuance of the order of the District Forum. The amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is reduced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 500/-. In pursuance of the orders passed by the State Commission on 18-7-1991 Rs. 1,000/- were ordered to be deposited. If the amount has been deposited, Rs. 500/- will be paid to the complainant-respondent and Rs. 500/- will be returned to the opposite party appellant.

THE appeal succeeds to the limited extent and the order dated 2-7-1991 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 1320/90 is modified accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal succeeds.