S.D.O., H.S.E.B. vs Pawan Kumar

THE Haryana State Electricity Board somewhat curiously appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar virtually dismissing the complaint preferred by the respondent-consumer.

THE complainant had alleged that he held an electricity connection vide Account No. SP-3-907/Q at Hisar for which the normal electricity charges had varied from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800/- per month which had been regularly paid. However, to this consternation he, received a bill for May 1992 for an amount of Rs. 21,432/- which was alleged to be excessive. THE plea was that in fact the bill for the period should not exceed Rs. 587/- and a reduction thereof was accordingly sought as a relief in the complaint. The appellant-Board in contesting the complaint, took up the somewhat frivolous plea that the complainant was running a factory to extract plastic for open sale, which obviously was for a commercial purpose and for that reason, he was not a consumer. On merits, it was alleged that on 31st October, 1992 the premises of the said factory were checked by the Assistant Director, Vigilance, accompanied by other Board''s officials and one "Lal Ji" was associated on behalf of the consumer therewith who had signed the checking report at the spot. It was the case that two out of the three seals of the meter were found broken and on that ground, the account of the consumer was hauled in accordance with sale circular No.4 of 1991, which was computed at the amount of Rs. 20,166-75P. On that basis, the disputed bill had been raised against the consumer. The respondent in his replication repeat his allegations, but did not in terms repudiate the appellant''s stand that infact he was running a factory for manufacturing plastics for sale.

The District Forum on the basis of the materials before it concluded against the respondent to hold that the premises were a factory and not a residence and further that the respondent had tried to conceal the true facts of the case and, therefore, drew an adverse inference against him. Merely holding that the broken seals did not provide conclusive proof of the theft of energy, the District Forum concluded as under: "However, at the spot load found was 18.27 KW against sanctioned load of 17.346 KW and about the same there is no justification to have the energy used and the same on the face of it amounts to illegal use of power and as such respondent is at liberty to re-open the case and calculate the amount of penalty etc. as per rules and regulations for extension of load in an unauthorised manner. We accordingly direct the respondent to overhaul the accounts within one month as mentioned and pointed out above. The case is accordingly disposed of."

FROM the above, it is itself patent that all that the District Forum has directed that the appellants should calculate the amount of penalty as per rules and regulations for the unauthorised extension of load, which has been held to be illegal. On fails to see how the appellant-Board could in any way be aggrieved by the said direction. It could not be disputed before us that the appellant-Board in supply of electricity hires out a service and consequently the question of the same being for a commercial purpose or otherwise is alien to the issue. Mr. Bhupinder Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant was somewhat at a loss as to what is sought to be challenged in the order under appeal. It was faintly argued that the calculation with regard to the unauthorised extended load may not be very prohibitive.

THE submission has only to be noticed and rejected. THE District Forum has virtually accepted the inspection report and the difference between the sanctioned and the unauthorised load. It has gone further to hold that this was an illegal use of power, which entitled the appellants to impose a penalty as also to re-calculate the charges in accord with their rules and regulations. Patently enough, a body corporate like the appellant, has to remain within the four corners of its statutory provisions. We, therefore, find nothing in the order of the District Forum, which merits interference at all. For the fore-going reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.