U.P.S.E.B., THROUGH ITS SUB- DIVISIONAL OFFICER vs ANWAR ALI

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.6.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarnagar in Complaint Case No. 80/1997.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant took a Light a Fan connection for his House No. 812, Mohalla Malhupura, Muzaffarnagar. About the consumption of electricity, bill for Rs. 1,194.30 from 19.6.1996 to 17.8.1996 was sent. In this bill a fictitious reading of 6818 was shown and in the present column N.A. was wrongly written. THE bill of 100 units was issued fictitiously. THE complainant gave an application to the opposite party on 11.10.1996 to the effect that without taking the reading of the meter, the bill has been issued. THE complainant also wrote that the reading on that date was 6357 and the bill should be amended accordingly and the amended bill should be sent. THE opposite party No. 2 called the concerned Junior Engineer and Meter Reader. THE Junior Engineer noted the reading 6357 on the application of the complainant and submitted a report to the opposite party No. 2. THE opposite party No. 2 did not amend the bill inspite of several requests and a provisional bill was prepared and the complainant was asked to deposit the same. Inspite of all this, the electric connection of the complainant was disconnected on 9.1.1997. THE complainant had to suffer a lot on account of this disconnection. THE complainant has prayed that the bill be corrected according to the reading and the electric connection be restored. The opposite parties in its written version have alleged that they have not caused any loss or damage to the complainant. The complainant in the month of August, 1996 consumed electricity units from 6440 to 6818 and in December 1996 consumed electricity from 6818 to 6358. In the bill RDF was written and thereafter from meter reading 6818 to 6505 RDF was again shown. It was also written to the Electricity Testing Department for test of the meter. The enquiry report has not been received so far including the report of the meter testing. The amount of bill is liable to be paid and the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The parties filed evidence before the learned District Forum who after considering every aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that the bills have not been correctly issued and it directed the opposite party to restore the connection of the complainant within a week and to charge minimum charges for the period in dispute. These bills were to be sent within a week and the payment was to be made by the complainant within the next one week. The complainant was awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the bills which were sent to the complainant were correct according to the meter reading. When the meter reading was not taken N.A. was written. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that the fictitious bills were given and even bills after the disconnection made on 9.1.1997 were issued for the period 19.6.1998 till 18.10.1998. According to the learned Counsel the bills should have been issued according to the meter reading.

A perusal of the file and judgment of the learned District Forum will go to show that when the bill was received by the complainant, he made a complaint on 10.11.1996 to the effect that a fictitious reading of 6318 has been shown and a bill of Rs. 1,194.30 has been issued. No action was taken by the opposite party on this complaint of the complainant. We find that when this complaint was made, the Junior Engineer has shown in his report the meter reading was 6357 which shows that the bill which was issued to the complainant was not correct. In the bill of December, 1996 a meter reading has been shown as 6318 to 6358 and R.D.F. has been entered. In the month of December, 1996 the reading has been shown as 6318. Thus it shows that the bills which have been prepared by the opposite party are not correct and the wrong reading has been noted in the bills. Even in the month of October, 1996 when the meter was checked the reading was found to be 6357. Thereafter the reading in all the bills were same. Thus the learned District Forum has come to the conclusion that the meter reader has not taken the correct reading and as such the bills prepared were also incorrect. Even if the meter was defective as reported by the Junior Engineer, it was the duty of the Department to have changed this meter. The Department did not change the meter and inspite of this, bills were continuously sent to the complainant on the basis of the same reading. Moreover it has also come in evidence that the opposite party has not filed any report whether the meter is defective or not. The inspection report was also not filed before the District Forum inspite of several dates being fixed and adjournments being given to the Department for this purpose. When the connection had been disconnected the meter could have been removed and the report could have been given whether the meter was defective or not. The worst part of the case is that even after disconnection on 9.1.1997 bills were being sent to the complainant and no correction in the bill was made by the opposite party. The minimum billing should have been done even if the meter was found to be defective but this practice was not adopted. It has been tried to show that the complainant was committing theft of the electricity for which a paper dated 4.5.1999 has been filed. This shows that this has been done in order to deprive the just claim of the complainant. It does not effect the merits of the case at all. Thus we find that the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are correct as the learned District Forum has correctly appreciated the controversy in dispute and has come to a correct finding. No interference is required. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost to the complainant. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.