A supplier of electricity is not guilty of a deficiency in service by strictly adhering to its published manual for calculating electricity charges, even if the resulting charges are higher than the consumer expected.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President—Whether the Haryana State Electricity Board would be guilty of a deficiency in service for strictly adhering to the terms of Instruction No. 115 of their Sales Manual for calculating the electricity charges for a dead or burnt meter? This indeed is the solitary core question in this complaint.

2. The facts merit notice with relevance to the issue aforesaid. M/s. Harjit Brothers-complainants admittedly are running a factory in Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon which originally had a sanctioned electricity connection for 98 KW only. It was their case that they had made an application for the extension of the load under the voluntary disclosure scheme for enhancing the same to 147.250 KW and installed the necessary equipment therefor in the year 198889. However the said enhancement was admittedly not granted to the complainants allegedly on the pretext or the other. On the 23rd of September, 1990 the meter of the complainants was burnt and it was the case that they requested the Sub Divisional Officer to replace the same but no orders were issued in this regard by the authorities. The complainants thereafter approached the Superintending Engineer vide Annexure P-2, who is said to have issued the necessary instructions to meet the grievance of the consumer by his letter Annexure P-3. It is common ground that it was only on the 28th of December, 1991 that a new meter was replaced and installed on the premises.

3. It is then the case that for the interregnum when the meter was not working adhoc bills were raised against the complainant which they seemed to have willingly paid. It is. however pleaded that they were assured that the excess, if any would be adjusted in the future bills. It is alleged that after the installation of the new meter, average billing of electricity came to Rs. 18,085/- per month despite the fact that the tariff had been enhanced by 8 paise per unit. This average was sought to be worked out on the basis of the bills for 6 months beginning from the 25th of February, 1992 to the 17th of July, 1992. The grievance is that the complainants had paid the electricity bills for the previous 15 months from the 23rd of September, 1990 to the 27th of December, 1991 by an excess amount of Rs. 1,24,400/-. On the basis of some interesting figure work the claim is that the difference of the amount with interest to the tune of Rs. 2,12,122/ - with future interest of 24% be refunded to the complainant.

4. In the written statement filed by the opposite parties, three preliminary objections were raised to which reference now becomes unnecessary, because they were disposed of and rejected by a separate speaking order dated the 30th of August, 1993. On merits the firm stand was that the complainant had extended the sanctioned load of 98.733K.W. to 147.250 K.W. without any authorisation illegally. However, he had declared the load under the voluntary Disclosure Scheme in June 1988. It was pointed out that the burning of the meter had been occasioned by the unauthorised enhancement of the load, which had put pressure on the electrical system. In accordance with the usual practice, the complainants were asked to purchase their own meter because these were not in stock and the delay in the installation of the meter is squarely laid at the door of the complainants. The new meter was installed as soon as the complainants had purchased and presented the same. For the relevant period, the billing was regularly made on the basis of the average consumption of the previous six months and these were paid by the complainants without protest or objection. The said bills are firmly pleaded to be neither adhoc nor inflated and it is the case that the complainants would be estopped from challenging the same and no assurance was or in the circumstances could possibly be’ given that any adjustment would be made on the basis of the bills likely to be raised in future. It is further pointed out that the subsequent consumpt