AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant/petitioner applied for an electricity connection and deposited the requisite charges on 27.05.1999. Since the connection was not provided to him, he filed a consumer complaint being complaint no. 72 of 2002 before the District Forum, Buxar. The said complaint was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to provide the electricity connection to the complaint, on his supplying the required service wires etc. The electricity connection was provided accordingly on 02.08.2003. Thereafter, the complainant received a bill for Rs.26,659/-. He filed a second consumer complaint bearing complaint no. 25 of 2004 disputing the aforesaid bill of Rs.26,659/-.
The complaint was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the complainant had been consuming electricity through the meter less connection since June 1999 and therefore, based upon the average consumption, the bill in question was issued to him including arrears amounting to Rs.23,010.89p for the June 1999 to July 2003.
The District Forum vide its order dated 12.10.2004, directed the respondent to rectify the aforesaid bill on the basis of the meter reading and also pay a compensation quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant/petitioner.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said Commission vide impugned order dated 25.01.2016, allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner/complainant had actually consumed electricity during the period from June, 1999 to July, 2003 through a meter less electricity connection. Having consumed electricity for the aforesaid period, he is required to pay to the respondent for the electricity consumed by him during the said period. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant is that the calculation of the aforesaid charges on the basis of average consumption was not correct. He however, concedes that there is no rule/formula prescribed in the Rules, for computing the electricity charges for the period the electricity is consumed through a meter less connection. In the absence of any rule or regulation governing the calculation of the electricity charges, for the electricity consumption through a meter less connection, the respondent, in my view was fully justified in raising a bill on the basis of the average consumption as reflected in the bills issued for the period after the meter was installed in compliance of the earlier order of the District Forum.
There is no evidence of the calculation made by the respondent in arriving at the amount of Rs.26,659/- for the period from June, 1999 to July, 2003 being wrong. If the petitioner/complainant was disputing the amount worked out by the respondent on average consumption basis, it was for him to give his own computation and demonstrate before the District Forum that the actual amount payable by him on the basis of average consumption came to less than Rs.26,659/-. That having not been done, it would be difficult to assail the demand raised by the respondent, when the same demand, according to the respondent, was based upon the average consumption of electricity as worked out on the basis of the consumption after the installation of the electricity meter at the premises of the petitioner/complainant. The order passed by the State Commission therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.