U.P.State Electricity Board vs SHAN INDUSTRIES

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.3.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Shahjahanpur in Complaint Case No. 184/1992.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant had a rice mill for which he took 60 H.P. electricity connection. THE complainant had also 80 H.P. oil engine in order to run the rice mill in the event of failure of electricity. THE complainant had regularly paid the bills but before the start of the season 1991-92, in November, 1991 the transformer and the meter installed by the opposite party were burnt. On account of this fact the rice mill could not run. A complaint to this effect was made to the Junior Engineer of the Electricity Department who assured for replacement of the transformer. THEreafter a complaint was made in writing on 17.11.1991, when nothing was made on the verbal complaint. Another complaint was also made on 25.11.1991. When there was no response to these applications the complainant again made a complaint on 26.11.1991. According to the complainant the transformer was changed on 21.11.1991 but the meter was not changed. In the month of November no electricity was supplied and the complainant had to run the mill on oil machine. In December, 1991 he received a bill for Rs. 12,894.40. This bill related to the period November, 1991. When he made a complaint to the Assistant Engineer he assured that the bill will be corrected. When the bill was not corrected the complainant approached the office of the Electricity Department. He again received another bill for the same amount for the month of December, 1991. THE meter was not changed by this time. THE complainant alleged that he has suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000/-. He has also prayed for correction of bill and replacement of meter. The opposite parties have admitted that the complainant paid two bills for September, 1991 but did not deposit the amount of rebate of Rs. 211.40. The complainant had to deposit Rs. 3,071.94 in respect of the bill for October, 1991. The complainant''s meter became defective in November, 1991 and did not record any reading and it was changed on 12.3.1992. The transformer which had developed defects in the night of 14/15 November, 1991 and was replaced without undue delay. The complainant did not receive electricity only for 12 days. The meter was not burnt but its calendar had developed defects. The provisional bill was prepared as the reading was not received. As the amount of the bill has not been paid, the department is entitled to disconnect the electricity.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, directed that only minimum charges be taken from the complainant during the period November, 1991 to March, 1992 excluding the periods when the transformer was not working. The Electricity Department was also directed to pay Rs. 500/- as cost within a period of one month failing which interest at the rate of 18% per annum has to be payable.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum the Electricity Department has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that the transformer was burnt and was replaced after 12 days. The meter was also defective and did not record any reading. When the meter was defective, how the bills for a sum of Rs. 12,894.40 were sent for the months of November and December by the Electricity Department. The bills should have been for minimum guarantee and not for the amount for which the bills have been prepared. During the course of arguments before the learned District Forum, learned Counsel for the Electricity Department had argued that the bills for the period October, 1991 to March, 1992 were prepared on the basis of consumption in the adjoining rice mill of the same capacity and having the same load of connection. This approach of the department is thoroughly perverse. The bill of one consumer cannot be issued on the assumptions of another consumer even if both the consumers have connection for the same load. The consumption of electricity depends on several facts and not merely granting of the common load. The make of the factory, the running period etc. will make the difference in the consumption of electricity.

THUS the case of the complainant is correct and the learned District Forum was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the bills were wrongly issued by the department. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the appeal to the respondent. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed with costs.