Station Manager Indian Airlines Andors vs Jiteswar Ahir

BRIEF facts averred in the complaint are that Smt. Shanti Devi (complainant in short) has been residing in her house at Swatantra Nagar, Narela and has electric connection No. 1222728 DL of 25 KW. On 21.11.91 there was sparking as a result of which the meter got burnt. The person on duty was orally informed and he promised to take further action in the matter. However, the meter was not replaced. The complainant sent a request in writing for replacement of the meter on 4.12.91. The complaint was acknowledged by the opposite party but no action was taken. The complainant got served legal notice on 13.1.92. Without taking any further action for replacement of the meter, the burnt meter was taken away by officials of the opposite party in February, 92 and a bill dated 19.2.92 for Rs. 1,20,520.45 was served on the complainant for the period 26.11.88 to 26.11.91 to be paid upto 27.1.92. The present complaint was instituted on 30.3.92 and the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to instal the meter without insisting for the payment of the bill for Rs. 1,20,000/ - odd. According to the complainant the said bill is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and un -warranted. She has also prayed for cost of proceedings against the opposite party.

IN the written version filed by DESU (opposite party for short) it has been stated that a joint team comprising officials of three wings namely vigilance, meter testing and zonal staff, carried out an inspection of the premises of the complainant on 26.11.91 and found that electricity was being used directly from the main supply line by taking out the meter which was lying on the ground. It was also found that instead of the sanctioned load the connected load was 5.09 KW. The joint team also found that in addition to the premises of the complainant the supply was being used for industrial power as well as commercial light and power by M/s. Ushal Electricals and M/s. Chandigarh Hospital. The joint team prepared an inspection report and got registered a case for theft with Police Station Narela. On the basis of the joint team and in accordance with the relevant tariff instructions for the relevant period the aforesaid bill for Rs. 1,20,000/ - odd was prepared and served on the complainant. According to the opposite party, the bill was perfectly in order and supply could not be restored unless the bill was paid. In the rejoinder filed by the complainant an facts relating to joint inspection by the aforesaid team and the electric energy having been found being stolen or sub -let were denied.

IN support of her case, the complainant filed her own affidavit and also placed reliance on the reply filed by one Kanhiya Lai, Meter Reader in departmental proceed ingsagainst him under Rule 7 of DESU (DMC) Service (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 dated 9.11.92. On behalf of the opposite party an affidavit of Mr. R.N.P. Sharma, Asstt. Accountant, Distt. Narela who had obtained approval of the Competent Authority and had prepared the disputed bill in accordance with the tariff in force was filed. He has stated the basis on which now the bill has been raised. The opposite party has also filed the affidavit of Mr. O.P. Charya, Supdt. (T) in the Distt./Zone Office, Narela. He was one of the members of the joint team which carried out the inspection on 26.11.91. He also produced a copy of the joint inspection report which was prepared after the inspection.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Two questions arise. These are : (1) whether the opposite party has right to cut off supply and if so, what are the procedural safeguards which must be observed ? (2) for what period can back billing be done ? There is no dispute that the licensee, DESU in this case, is entitled to cut off supply to a consumer on the ground of breach of any of the conditions of supply. Sub -letting of electric supply without prior permission, using the supply for load more than the sanctioned one and extracting energy directly by removing the meter are violations of conditions of supply, (See condition No. 36 of the Conditions of Supply issued by DESU under the Electricity Act, 1910). Condition No. 36 states that the undertaking has the right to discontinue supply to a consumer on giving 24 hours notice in writing if there is reason to believe that the consumer is contravening any of the provisions under the Act. In a number of decisions it has been held by various High Courts that 24 hours notice is totally inadequate. One such decision has been placed on record by the complainant of M/s. Basanti Dal & Floor Mill v. MCD in suit No. 1558 of 1991 decided on March 12,1993 by Delhi High Court. In this suit reliance was placed by the learned Judge on an earlier decision of the High Court in Suit No. 1958 of 1991 decided on 15.10.92 earlier suit in Roshan Lal & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The only other provision regarding notice is different to be found in Section 24 of the Electricity Act which must be for seven days. We are quite clear that the DESU cannot be permitted to circumvent the provisions regarding service of notice before disconnection on the plea that at the time of inspection the complainant was found committing theft and misusing the connection. What was required was to have restored the connection, to have served the requisite notice and only then proceed to cut off the connection. It is of no consequence that there was a serious allegation of theft and misuse of electric supply. It has to be borne in mind that till tcxiay, theft of energy continues to he an allegation only; it has yet not been proved. We are supported in taking this view by decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ajanta lndustrial and Steel Co. 40 (1990) Delhi Law Times 440. In other words, failure to restore electric supply by installing a correct meter constituted deficiency in service. It was only after restoration of supply that further action for disconnection could be taken. This has admittedly not been done. With regard to back billing the relevant provision is 12.3 of the tariff which reads as under : - ''The basis of energy assessment shall be connected load or sanctioned load whichever is higher for 6 months preceding date of detection ibid, unless conclusive evidence is provided by the consumer to the satisfaction of the Undertaking to substantiate that the theft started afterwards. However, this would not prejudice assessment of energy on account of theft from a date falling even prior to past six months on prima -facie establishment of theft with documentary evidence from that date.'' In a number of decisions, it has been held that back -billing is permissible only for a period of six months as laid down in Section 24 of the Electricity Act. The learned Counsel for the opposite party argued that in the tariff for the year 1991 -92 it was permissible to do the back billing for a period of three years. We are unable to accept the submission for the simple reason that there can be no provision in contravention of the express mandate of the main Act, namely Section 24 of the Electricity Act.

FOR these reasons, we partly allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to raise a fresh bill within three weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order on the basis of back -billing for six months immediately preceding 26.11.91. It is further directed that on the complainants depositing the amount as per the revised bill the opposite party shall take steps to immediately restore the electric supply to the premises. This restoration shall, however, be without prejudice to the criminal case or such further proceedings as may have been undertaken by the opposite party in accordance with law. With regard to alleged theft, misuse etc., the opposite party shall also not be debarred in serving notice of at least seven days in writing and taking further action according to law after considering the reply, if any, submitted by the complainant. The complainant shall be paid Rs. 2,500/ - as compensation and costs. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties. Complaint partly allowed with costs.