TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD vs P.R.K.Nadar SONS PLANTATION

WE are satisfied that this appeal has to be accepted. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has two service connections in his name. They are S.C. No. 208 and other is 118. The complainant was served with notice by the opposite party stating that a sum of Rs. 18,166.95 was due from the complainant and requiring the complainant to pay the said sum within 15 days of the letter dated 15.2.1997. It is clear from the records that such a claim was made on the basis of audit objection raised in A.S. No. 128 dated 1.10.1996 stating that there was a short levy to the tune of Rs. 18,166.95. It was made on the basis that there was non-adoption of correct average charge for the period from 6/94 to 8/95. The other audit objection covered by A.S. No. 204 concerned short levy of Rs. 6,080. It related to the non-collection of arrears for the period of 9.3.1995. The two objections related to S.C. No. 208 which is supplied from Periyur Sub-station. It is used during summer season through overhead tank to run the coffee seeds machine and during the period when the other service connection No. 118 could not be used due to scarcity of water. The complainant informed that the meter got burnt with the result the meter was removed. Later, the meter was fixed in the month of September, 1995 and the opposite parties calculated 1580 units on an average basis from October 1994 to February 1995 relating to S.C. No. 208. The 1st opposite party in his letter informed that as per audit report the average billing calculated from 21.6.1994 to 28.3.1995 is not correct and thus they called upon the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 18,166.95 towards short levy of average billing and Rs. 6,080 towards current consumption deposit. In that context, the present complaint was laid.

IT is not known how in the above circumstances, the complainant can allege any deficiency in service. Based upon the audit report and alleging that there was short levy demand was raised against the complainant. If the complainant is aggrieved by the same, there is remedy provided under Clause 17.13 of the terms and conditions laid down under the Electricity Board to appeal the Superintending Engineer. On either the Superintending Engineer agreeing with the complainant or disagreeing with the same, thereafter alone, the complainant can approach the proper Forum. According to the opposite parties, the short levy proposed in the audit objections was in accordance with rules and regulations. In our opinion, the Consumer Forum cannot decide or conclude how average consumption should be made for meterless period and whether it should be restricted to a six months period or more than that. This is an aspect which lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Electricity Board with which the Consumer Forum cannot interfere. Further, as per Clause 19.16 in cases like defective meter, defective metering arrangement, incorrect application of tariff, wrong billing, etc., the duration for the period for which such revision can be made is subject to a maximum period of three years from the date of billing. The new meter could not be fixed according to the opposite party for want of stock. The failure to fix a new meter immediately cannot be called a deficiency in service. Further, Clause 15 provides that the complainant has to deposit the current consumption deposit. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there is no consumer dispute involved in this case and the policy of the Board to levy for any shortfall cannot be questioned nor the period can be determined by the Consumer Forum. Therefore, in that view of the matter, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, it follows that the appeal has to be allowed.

In the result, this appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without cost. The order of the Lower Forum is set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed but without cost. Appeal allowed.