Subbaraman vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD-/

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 25th day of February, 1998 in O.P. No. 76/1997 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur.

THE appellant is the complainant while the respondent is the opposite party. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

The complainant is the proprietor of Dasarathy Auto Enterprises, located at 15-16, Thirunarayanapuram East, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam - 612 001. He is having the electricity service connection No. 386 for industrial purposes which is charged as per the Rules under Tariff IV. It appears the meter installed in the said service connection was not functioning properly in the sense of not recording the actual consumption of electrical energy. The defective meter was removed on 18.7.1996 and a new meter in its place in working condition had been installed. According to the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (for short, "the Terms and Conditions"), an audit slip 77 had been issued and consequently the opposite party revised the bill for the period between 21.7.1995 and 18.7.1996 and made a demand from the complainant for payment of Rs. 4,990/-.

IT is the positive case of the complainant that he shifted his business activity to a different premises and consequently the consumption of electrical energy in the said service connection got gradually reduced and the meter installed in the said premises reflected the actual consumption of electrical energy. He would also state that the meter was not at all defective. Therefore, the demand so made after the revision of the bills is illegal. This sort of an act of issuing a revised demand on the part of the opposite party, he would say, would tantamount to deficiency in service. In such a backdrop and setting, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

THE opposite party in pith and substance would contend that the meter installed in the premises was defective and according to the terms and conditions, the bills were revised a fresh demand had been issued for the payment of Rs. 4,990/-. To say that the meter was not defective is shorn of reality of situation. THEre is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. THE complaint as such is liable to be dismissed. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, ultimately recorded a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and consequently dismissed the complaint without costs. Aggrieved by the order as above, the appellant/complainant resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice namely, learned Counsel M/s. G. Rajan and Raja Chandrasekar.

ON service of process, the respondent/opposite party entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice namely, learned Counsel Mr. V. Dhanasekar.

WHEN the matter came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant was called absent and no representation was made on their behalf. The fact that the said learned Counsel is absent, does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits, of course, after hearing learned Counsel Mr. K. Kumaran representing learned Counsel Mr. V. Dhanasekar appearing for the respondent/opposite party and on perusal of the materials placed on record and that is exactly what we have done in this action. Even at the outset we may point out that there are absolutely no merits in this appeal. The meter installed in the premises was removed on 18.7.1996 and in its place a new meter had been installed. The meter removed was subjected to test. Ex. B1 is the Test Certificate testing meter at MRT, Sub Centre, Kumbakonam. According to the said report, the meter got struck up and was not working.

If such a contingency happens, it is not as if the opposite party Electricity Board is without any remedy. 19.12 of the Terms and Conditions specifies that in the event of any clerical errors or mistakes in the amount levied, demanded or charged by the Board, the Board will have the right to demand an additional amount in case of undercharging and the consumer will have the right to get refund of the excess amount in the case of overcharging. 19.16 of the Terms and Conditions provides that revision of bills for Low Tension service connections arising out of any reason attributable to the Board like defective meter, defective metering arrangement, incorrect application by tariff, wrong billing etc., will be made for the duration of the period for which such revision is called for, subject to a maximum back period of three years from the date of billing. Revision of bills arising out of any reason attributable to the consumer will be made for the duration for which such revision is called for.

BY a cursory perusal of 19.12 and 19.16 of the Terms and Conditions, we are able to perceive that the opposite party Electricity Board is entitled to revise the bill in the case of a defective meter. 10 of the Terms and Conditions reads as under : "10. When supply to the consumer is given without a meter or where the meter fixed is found defective or to have ceased to function and no theft of energy or violation is suspected, the quantity of electricity supplied during the period when the meter was not installed or the meter installed was defective, will be assessed as mentioned hereunder : The quantity of electricity supplied during the period in question will be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the preceding four months in respect of High Tension service connections and two assessment periods (four months) in respect of Low Tension service connections, provided that the conditions in regard to use of electricity during the said four months/two assessment periods were not different from those which prevailed during the period in question. In respect of High Tension service connections, where the meter fixed for measuring the Maximum Demand becomes defective, the Maximum Demand will be assessed by computation on the basis of the average of the recorded demand during the previous four months. Where the meter becomes defective immediately after the service connection is effected, the quantum of electricity supplied during the period in question is to be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the succeeding two assessment periods, provided the conditions in regard to the use of electricity in respect of such Low Tension service connections are not different."

THE Terms and Conditions specified in 17.10 specifies in crystal clear terms that the bills in respect of Low Tension service connection can be revised by taking into consideration the average electricity supplied to the succeeding two assessment periods. THE opposite party Electricity Department took over the average of the electricity consumption and made a demand for the period in question, that is to say, 21.7.1995 to 18.7.1996 quantified in a sum of Rs. 4,990/-. THE act of the opposite party Electricity Board in issuing such a demand on the facts and in the circumstances of the case cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable in law. All these aspects of the matter had been duly taken into account by the Forum below in dismissing the complaint. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.