W.B.S.E.B. vs Rabindra Nath Das

-THIS is an appeal against the judgment passed by the District Forum, Malda, dated 11.9.2002. The case of the complainant in brief is stated hereunder.

THE complainant is a manufacturer of mango products and for that purpose he was running husking machine by electric energy since long and that consumption of electric energy was under industrial meter connection. On 31.5.1999 the meter got burnt and he intimated the O.P.-W.B.S.E.B., who claimed a sum of Rs. 1,400/- for replacement of the burnt meter by a new one. THE complainant deposited the same amount on 7.6.1999 to the O.P. On 29.2.2000 a new meter having one phase was installed in place of the burnt meter, but that meter could not fulfil the purpose of running the business and as a result, the complainant was compelled to close down his business. THEreafter in the month of October, 2002 the three phase meter was installed and since then he started business consuming electric energy. THE yellow card did not reflect any opening figure as to consumption at that time but in the bill, the reading was mentioned for the period on and from 28.4.2001 to 30.3.2002 as 01602 to 01653. THEre being no opening figure as to consumption the calculation of consumption from October, 2000 to March, 2001 was made without any basis. According to the complainant, he did not consume the electric energy from 31.5.1999 to 28.2.2000 and one phase meter being installed on 29.2.2000, the same did not fulfil the purpose of business and it continued till 10/2000. So ultimately the complainant did not consume any energy from May, 19 to October, 2000. THE O.P. can claim bills from November, 2000 to April, 2002 as per reading of the meter. So the disconnection of the energy line was illegal and arbitrary. THE complainant filed the case praying for direction upon the O.P. to restore the electric energy and compensation for financial loss to the tune of Rs. 300/- per day for the period from May, 99 upto the date of filing of the case. The Forum below in its order directed the O.P. to send fresh bills for the admitted period of consumption on average calculation of previous consumption i.e., before 31.5.1999 as no reading was taken properly and further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.

Being dissatisfied with the order the appellant-W.B.S.E.B. has preferred the present appeal before the Commission. In the memo of appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the present respondent is a registered consumer in respect of industrial connection and the connected load is of 25 H.P. It is further submitted by him that the meter reading was not taken from 10/2000 to 3/2001 due to misplacement of Blue Card and bills were raised on average basis. The Board claimed average bill at the rate of 450 units with effect from 7/99 to 10/2000 and this calculation was based on the consumption pattern from 11.5.1998 to 10.11.1998. At that relevant time the consumption was between 450 and 495 units per month. The electric connection of the respondent was disconnected by the Board for prolonged non-payment of electric bills according to the Section 24 of the Electricity Act. The appellant submits that as this is a dispute relating to bill, the Consumer Forum has no authority to adjudicate the matter. It is argued by the appellant that the Forum has no authority to assess or to quash the electric bills and according to the Indian Electricity Act the remedy lies only with the CEI, who is the sole authority to assess the disputed bills and defective nature of the meter. The learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to the Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act in this respect. He submits that the judgment passed by the Forum below is unjust, unreasoned, contrary to law and liable to be set aside.

IN this context the appellant refers to a judgment reported in C.H.N. Vol-1 1997 (SC), passing an order dated 21.11.1996 in a matter of C.E.S.C. Ltd. v. Sri N.M. Banka and Others. It was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that in case of dispute or difference about the correctness of the meter or the correctness of the bill, the consumer may apply to the Electrical INspector. It was not proper for the Court to direct C.E.S.C. to supply electricity to a defaulter indefinitely by interim orders. Specific statutory remedy provided by the INdian Electricity Act to the consumer should not have been allowed to be bypassed. The Court should have declined to intervene when the consumer approached the Court. The Court should have direct to the consumer to avail of the statutory remedy........ The Courts could not have decided about the correctness or otherwise of the bill. 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 bills. 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 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....".

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. To meet the ends of the justice the respondent shall pay 50% of the disputed amount to the appellant on such a provisional bill being raised by the appellant within one month of getting a copy of this order and the appellant shall restore the electric line of the respondent within fifteen days after the above payment. The payment of balance amount, if any, is to be referred to the CEI, West Bengal for adjudication. The CEI 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 CEI will be binding on both the parties regarding the balance amount, if any, for the disputed period. Regarding payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- by the appellant/respondent as ordered by the Forum, we are of the opinion that it is on the higher side. It will be proper if we reduce it to Rs. 500/-. The appellant shall pay the compensation of Rs. 500/- to the respondent as after a long delay the appellant installed a new meter. The present respondent deposited money for new meter on 7.6.1999 and the same was installed on 29.2.2000, after a lapse of eight months. The appeal is allowed in part ex parte and the Forum''s order is modified as detailed above. A copy of this order is to be sent to the respondent immediately. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal allowed in part.