W.B.S.E.B. vs BEDESHTULLA SK.

THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Murshidabad dated 1.9.2003. The facts of the case in brief are stated hereunder.

THE complainant is a consumer under the O.P. and used to pay energy charges. THE consumption of energy up to October, 2001 was about 70 units per month. THE O.P. raised bills for the months of December, 2001, and January, 2002 claiming Rs. 9,672/- for 4574 units. THEreafter he met the officials of the O.P. and requested to rectify those bills. THE O.P. assured him but did nothing and raised another bill for the months of February, 2002 to April, 2002 and May, 2002 to July, 2002 claiming @ 303 units in each bill and claimed additional Rs. 10,329/-. It was noted in the bill that the meter had stopped. On receiving the bill he met the O.P. and again requested them to revise the same but with no result. THEn he filed this case praying for direction upon the O.P. to send fresh bills after correction @ 70 units per month as per meter reading and not to disconnect the service line. In its judgment the Forum directed the O.P. to issue fresh bill claiming only 855 units instead of 4574 units. The complainant was allowed to pay the arrears in 10 (ten) equal monthly instalments along with the current bills. The O.P. was directed to restore the electric line, if disconnected, on payment of reconnection charge. The Forum further gave liberty to the O.P. to disconnect the electric connection in case of default in payment.

Being dissatisfied with the order of the Forum below the W.B.S.E.B.-appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the meter was originally of five digit meter but somehow it escaped the notice of the meter reader and the back ward movement of the meter was detected on 28.11.2001. The initial reading on 9.11.1985 was 0000 and the reading taken on 9.11.2001 was 19380. The bill has been claimed up to the reading 9406. So the respondent was bound to pay additional units. The bill for the period from February to April and May to July, 2002 for an amount of Rs. 10,329/- was claimed. It is further submitted by the appellant that the Forum has no authority to assess or quash the bills and the remedy lies only before the CEI according to the Electricity Act.

ON careful perusal of all the papers and documents and considering the factual aspects we notice that the dispute between the two parties is pertaining to the disputed bill as well as the defective meter, as the appellant had alleged that the meter stopped. We have carefully gone through the Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which states that, "where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter or bill is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector, and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer...........". In this context we may refer to a judgment reported in C.H.N. Vol-I 1997, page 50 (SC), in the matter of C.E.S.C. v. N.M. Banka, which held that, "The consumer should have approached the Electrical Inspector straightaway if he was aggrieved by the bills. The Court should have declined to intervene when the consumer approached the Court. The Court should have directed the consumer to avail the statutory remedy".

GOING by the foregoing discussion we deem it appropriate to pass the following order: The dispute between the two parties is pertaining to the disputed bills and defective nature of the meter. To meet the ends of justice the respondent shall pay 50% of the disputed amount to the appellant, on the basis of a provisional bill accordingly by the appellant within one month getting a copy of this order. The respondent shall also pay the reconnection charge to the appellant as per the Electricity Act, if the line is lying disconnected. The appellant shall restore the electric line of the respondent within fifteen days after the above payment, if necessary. As the appellant submits that the meter stopped, we direct that a new defect free meter shall be installed in the circuit by the appellant and the cost of the new meter will be borne by the appellant. Thereafter the entire bill and the defective meter in question are to be referred to the C.E.I., West Bengal for adjudication. The C.E.I. would do well to dispose of the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of reference. Be it mentioned that the decision of the C.E.I. will be binding on both the parties regarding the disputed bill for the disputed period. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part ex parte and the Forum''s order is set aside. A copy of this order is to be sent to the respondent immediately. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.