S.D.O. ELECTRIC SUB-DEVISION vs Ishwar Dass

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Bilaspur, dated 10.6.1996 whereby the appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite party) has been directed to pay to the complainant/respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) Rs. 2,000/- by way of token damages alongwith costs of Rs. 250/-.

ONE of the items in the electricity bill dated 7.7.1995, which is available on page 17 of the file, is an amount for Rs. 350/- which are referred to sundry charges and we have been told that these sundry charges are the charges for the replacement of the burnt meter of the complainant in April, 1994. The case of the opposite party is that the meter was burnt in the year 1994 and that the complainant is liable to pay for replacement charges of the meter for Rs. 350/-. According to the opposite party, the meter was burnt during April, 1994 because of the negligence of the complainant, therefore, he is liable to pay this amount. In this context, we have been shown Sales Manual, Part I/Third Edition of H.P. State Electricity Board, by the Counsel for the opposite party and Instruction No. 109, Para 2, provides that : "In case where the SDO (A.E./A.E.E.) is satisfied that the damage to the meter is due to lightning or any other reason beyond the reasonable control of the consumer, he shall after recording the reasons of the damage in writing order the meter to be replaced. In such cases the cost of the meter shall not be recovered from the consumer". It is also provided in Para 3 of the above Instruction that : "In other cases where the SDO (A.E./ A.E.E. is of the opinion that the damage is due to the reasons other than lightning or beyond the reasonable control of the consumer, the damaged/burnt meter shall be replaced after charging the cost of the meter from the consumer". In the instant case, admittedly, no cost for replacing the meter was charged and presumably on the ground that the damage to the meter was caused due to lightening or any other reasons beyond the control of the consumer. In case the meter had been damaged by the consumer i.e. the complainant, the meter could have been replaced by the opposite party only after charging the cost of the meter from the consumer.

In these circumstances, it is apparent, according to the opposite party themselves, that no charges on account of cost of the meter were recovered before replacing of the burnt meter as it was considered by the opposite party that the meter has been damaged for the reasons beyond the control of the consumer. Unfortunately, however, the opposite party has completely made a somersault to the earlier stand and quietly put this amount of the bill as cost on account of replacement of the burnt meter in the bill for july, 1995 without informing the complainant. In case, if at all the consumer was to be charged the price of the meter and that the price was not realised before, at least such a cost should have been included in the bills issued immediately after April, 1994 and it should not have taken 1 year 3 months for issuing another bill for including that amount in the bill dated 7.7.1995. In spite of that the complainant wrote to the opposite party that such an amount is not due and cannot be recovered from him and they should try to probe into the matter but without investigating the matter, the opposite party abruptly disconnected the electricity connection and such disconnection continued for one year and it was restored only after the order of the District Forum.

HAVING regard to overall aforementioned circumstances/we have no hesitation to hold that the disconnection of the electricity on the basis of the bill issued on 7.7.1995 is not only wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust but has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this context our observations in Belie Ram v. Executive Engineer, HPSEB & Ors., III (1996) CPJ 105 may be referred to : "No doubt, the principles of natural justice are not embodied rules but it depends upon the facts of each case. However, Courts are to be satisfied that the person against whom an action was taken, had a fair chance of presenting his side of the case before the concerned authority and of persuading it that the grounds on which the action was proposed to be taken against him were either non-existent, or, even if they existed they did not justify the action" The aforesaid circumstances in our opinion warrant an opportunity to be afforded to the complainant to substantiate his case. The complainant is a peon and his three children who are studying in schools at Bilaspur. They have naturally suffered in their studies because of non-supply of electricity. The compensation, therefore, in these circumstances, of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 250/- awarded by the District Forum is neither unreasonable, unjust and inequitable, rather in our opinion, it appears to be on the lower side.

THERE is no force in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.