UMA ICE PLANT vs ASSTT. ENGR. BANSHDRONI GR. OF E.S., W.B.S.E.B.

THE complainant initiated this proceeding u/ Section 17 of C.P. Act, 1986 against the West Bengal State Electricity Board for their arbitrary claim of Rs. 8,95,219.57 for the electric consumption for the period 1/93 to 11/96 without assigning any reason whereas from 1/93 till date the opposite party West Bengal State Electricity Board duly realised monthly electric consumption by raising bills showing actual meter reading and further the petitioner is not in arrears of any electric consumption bill. In the prayer of the complaint the petitioner inter alia prayed for scraping off the said inflated bill. West Bengal State Electricity Board contested the case and filed the written objection giving details of a calculation as to why they raised supplementary bill amounting to Rs. 8,95,219.57 in paragraph 7 in their objection.

THE case is contested by the W.B.S.E.B. THEir case is that the meter was actually burnt in August 1992, and that since then the petitioner''s plant is being operated by making a direct connection. THE opposite party has further stated that the Board''s Technical Team visited the petitioner''s plant on 8.12.1996 and found the compressor motor bearing load of 40 H.P., 20 H.P. (2 Nos.). It was in addition to the contractual load in KW/H.P. 35 H.P. THE opposite party has further stated that the consumer enhanced the industrial load without intimation to the Board. THE opposite party Board has made its own calculation of the quantity of electricity consumed by the petitioner and has claimed that the petitioner has to pay the full supplementary bill amounting to Rs. 8,95,219.57. Admittedly the original meter was burnt and admittedly also the petitioner''s plant is in full operation. The petitioner has filed paper to show that they have paid upto date bills month by month upto April, 1998. They have also filed an affidavit that after the burning of the meter the W.B.S.E.B. installed a low electric meter and that since 1992 the petitioner has fully paid all electric bill, as raised by the Board. They have also filed a (sic.) showing the amounts of bill paid by them month by month. In the circumstances the question raised is if the petitioner is liable to pay the additional amount charged from him.

The W.B.S.E.B. has relied on a judgment reported in, 1997 CTJ 197 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has held that the Electricity Board by making a demand on the petitioner who had neglected to pay the bill for additional sum was right in disconnecting the supply with out recourse to filing of suit to recover the same. There is no doubt that the Board has legal right to raise supplementary bill when the occasions so demand. But in this case the position is a different one. Here the petitioner has been duly paying the electric charges raised by the opposite party and no objection has so far been raised. There is also no counter affidavit to the statement made by the petitioner that a new meter has been supplied by the Board and the same is working. The meter not as it appears from the bill submitted is GG/007476. This is clearly inconsistent with the case of the opposite party that the plant is running without any meter by a direct connection.

CONSIDERING all these facts we are of the opinion that the amount of additional electric charge as raised by the Board should be properly tested by a Competent Authority. We also note that had there been an over load of energy as alleged by the opposite party the meter would have been burnt. On the basis of the above analysis of facts we intend to dispose of the case as follows: The dispute about the additional amount of electric charge demanded by the W.B.S.E.B. be referred for adjudication to the C.E.I.W.B. who is requested to submit the report within 90 days from the date of receipt of the reference. The petitioner shall comply with the requirement in this regard. Until the report is received the electric line of the petitioner shall not be disconnected. The petitioner shall however pay the electric bill month by month as raised by the W.B.S.E.B. until a report is received from the C.E.I., W.B. The C.E.L''s finding will be binding on both the parties. The case is thus disposed of. Case disposed of.