S.D.O.H.S.E.B. JIND vs RAJ KUMAR

THE Haryana State Electricity Board appeals against the order of the District Forum, Jind partly allowing the complaint of the respondent consumer. Since the appeal is concluded against the appellants by our recent decision in First Appeal No. 246 of 1993, S.D.O.(O), H.S.E.B. Kamal v. Ishwar Dass Jain of Karnal, decided on 19th of August, 1993 it is unnecessary to delve too deeply into the facts and merits thereof.

IT suffices to mention that the respondent-consumer who held an electricity connection with account No. P-253 in Jind was primarily aggrieved by a bill raised against him for Rs. 40,905-40p super-added with a surcharge penalty of Rs. 2045/- . IT was the primal grievance that the said amount sought to be levied was wholly unauthorised and in any case inflated beyond measure and the relief of quashing the demand and awarding damages was sought. The appellant department in their written statement took up the plea that the complainant''s meter was changed Way back on the 5th of September, 1991 which however, was found to be burnt and the average for the period when the meter was defective of burnt from October 1989 t6 August 1991 {i.e. for 23 months) was calculated and levied by the department as late as the 10th of February, 1992. This was calculated on the basis of the earlier period from September 1988 to July 1989. It was further the case that because the bill raised against the complainant appeared to be of lesser amount, these were raised on the basis of the report of an Audit Party. The allegation was that the respondent consumer did not pay the bill after December 1991 and his supply was disconnected on the 16th of October,, 1992 and a total out-standing amount of Rs. 42950-65p was raised against him.

It would appear that during the course of arguments, it was admitted on either side that out of the disputed bill, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- odd was towards the electricity actually consumed prior to the removal of the first meter; but the remaining amount of Rs. 32,45608p was sought to be levied for the period of 23 months on the basis of the average consumption. The District Forum without going into the question whether the arrears for so long a period as 25 months on account of a defective meter could be recovered at all, took the view that the levy should not be more than Rs. 500/- per month and granted relief accordingly.

MRS. Sushi! Dogra, learned Counsel for the appellant Board with her usual persistence contended that the Board had both the power and the justification for not only levying, but recovering arrears for hearty two years on the ground of a defective meter earlier. It was the case that there was no bar or limitation for the recovery of such arrears at all. The aforesaid argument has only to be noticed and rejected because it is against the very teeth of the relevant statutory provisions and the settled interpretation thereof by this Commission. This question had come up for pointed consideration in S.D.O. (O), H.S.E.B. Karnal v. Ishwar Dass Jain of Karnal (supra). After an in-depth examination of the issue on the principle and precedent it was concluded as-follows:- "In view of the above, the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the negative. It is held that the Haryana State Electricity Board cannot recover the arrears of electricity charges for the defective meter from the consumer beyond the period of six months."

The aforesaid ratio in turn was rested on the decision of the High Court in AIR 1987 Delhi 219, H.D. Shourie v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another. The relevant observation therein also merits notice in exten-so:- "In other words, the maximum period for Which a bill can be raised in respect of a defective meter is six months and no more. Therefore, even if a meter has been defective for, say, a period of five years, the revised charge can be for a period not exceeding six months. The reason for this is obvious. It is the duty and obligation of the licensee to maintain and check the meter. If there is a default committed in this bet half by the licensee and the defective meter is not replaced, then it is obvious that the consumer should not be unduly penalised at a later point of time and a large bill raised. The provision for a bill not to exceed six months would possible ensure better checking and maintenance by the licensee."

IT is obvious that the aforesaid decisions conclude the matter against the appellant be cause it is common ground that herein the recovery for the alleged defective meter is sought to be made for a period of 23 months. What, however, calls for pointed notice is the fact that the crucial question stood settled way back by the decision of the afore mentioned Delhi High Court on the 31st of March, 1987. Within the consumer jurisdiction, it was reiterated by the Delhi State Commission in I (1992) CPJ 262, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dhanraj jain. This Commission again reiterated the matter in no uncertain terms in S.D.O. (O), H.S.E.B. Karnal v. Ishwar Dass Jain of Karnal (supra). Despite all this it would appear that the appellant-Board some what non-chalanty if not contumaciously persists in continuing to levy or impose arrears of electricity charges in this context on the helpless consumers far beyond the spelt out period of six months. This is typified by the present case and it appears to us that the respondent consumer herein is entitled to penal costs of Rs. 1000/- and it is ordered accordingly. For the foregoing reasons this appeal is hereby dismissed with the direction that the levied costs shall be tendered to the respondent within one month from today, failing which compliance will be enforced under Section 27 of the Act by the District Forum, Jind. Appeal dismissed with costs.