Savitri Devi vs HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

APPELLANT-Smt. Savitri Devi had filed a complaint before District Forum, Gurgaon regarding excessive charges claimed by the respondent-State Electricity Board in respect of the domestic electricity connection of the appellant for the period June, 1991 to February, 1994.

THE facts are not in dispute. THE old meter of the appellant had gone dead in June, 1991 and thereafter she was being billed on the basis of fixed bi-monthly charges. However, suddenly in 1994, after the replacement of the old meter, the department decided to send her a bill for additional amount on the basis of the average consumption shown by the old meter for the period from May, 1990 to February, 1991. Apparently, the over-hauling was done due to some audit objection. After examining the evidence of the parties, the District Forum has come to the conclusion that as the meter was defective, the Electricity Board was quite right in charging the bill on the basis of the average consumption for the period of six months prior to the old meter having burnt out. The learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that a new meter was installed on 15th June, 1993 and if at all the earlier bills were to be overhauled on the basis of average consumption, this should have been done on the basis of the consumption for six months period after the installation of the new meter. However, inexplicably the Board decided to take the average of six months from May, 1990 to February, 1991 for overhauling the bills. No reasons have been given for doing so. It has apparently been done on the basis of the consumption during the period which showed the maximum consumption. He has argued that the appellant lived alone in the house and her son had gone away to Canada and therefore, the charges should not be recovered on the basis of old average. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Electricity Board has argued that the charges have been recovered as per the regulations of the Electricity Board and there has been no defect or deficiency in doing so.

We have considered the above arguments carefully. It is an admitted fact that the meter of the appellant remained defective for over two years and no action was taken by the respondent to replace the same. It has also been stated that the meter remained dead from June, 1991 to February, 1994, whereas from the order of the District Forum, it appears that the new meter was installed on 15th June, 1993. Therefore, there does not appear to be any justification for overhauling the amount of the bill from June, 1991 to February, 1994 on the basis of the old average. Since a new meter had been installed on 15th June, 1993, bills for the subsequent period would, in any case, have been prepared on the basis of the meter reading and there was no question of charging the same on the basis of any old average. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that it was the duty of the Electricity Board to replace the defective meter at the earliest is quite valid. Therefore, the Electricity Board cannot be allowed to take advantage of the delay in replacing the old defective meter by charging bills on the basis of an old average. There is no explanation forthcoming from the Electricity Board as to why the bills were being sent to the appellant on the basis of fixed rate when the average of the previous period could easily have been taken at the time when the old meter became dead. Surprisingly, the Board kept charging the bill on a fixed rate for a period of two years and suddenly ordered to overhaul the account subsequently, There is also no explanation as to why the bills were charged on the basis of old average and not on the basis of the average consumption shown by the new meter. The request of the appellant for the revised bills on the basis of consumption shown by the new meter is fully justified and reasonable. We accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and direct the respondent-Electricity Board to prepare the bills afresh on the basis of the average consumption shown by the new meter. The average charges so calculated will be applicable to the whole period during which the meter remained defective. Any amounts paid by the appellant on the basis of fixed charges or on the basis of the overhauled bills, would be adjusted against the amount so calculated and the balance adjusted against her future bills. Directions passed.