Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Honble Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President &
Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Member
ADDITIONAL ASSTT. ENGINEER,
A. P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.—Appellants
versus
SIDDALA CHAKRAPANI—Respondent
F.A. No. 242 of 1997—Decided on 28.2.1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mr. J. Siddaiah, Standing Counsel.
For the Respondent:Mr. V. Gourishankara Rao, Advocate.
Disconnection of electrical energy without giving the mandatory seven days' notice under Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, is illegal and violative of the Act.
Headnote:
ELECTRICITY - DISCONNECTION OF SUPPLY - ILLEGALITY - NOTICE - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - COMPENSATION - INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910, SECTIONS 24, 26(6) - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986, SECTIONS 2(1)(G), 2(1)(O), 14(1)(D).
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a rice mill owner, approached the District Forum complaining that the supply of electrical energy to his rice mill was disconnected on the ground that he defaulted in the payment of bills for May and June, 1993. The complainant disputed the correctness of the meter and the bills raised for the energy consumption of his rice mill. The District Forum allowed the complaint in part and awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the illegal disconnection of supply.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the disconnection of the complainant's service connection was illegal and violative of Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as the mandatory requirement of seven days' notice was not given. The court also held that the disconnection was violative of Section 24(2) of the Act as the complainant had applied to the Chief Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Act questioning the correctness of the meter. The court further held that the disconnection constituted deficiency in service on the part of the electricity board and the complainant was entitled to compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the disconnection of the complainant's service connection was illegal and violative of Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910? 2. Whether the disconnection was violative of Section 24(2) of the Act? 3. Whether the disconnection constituted deficiency in service on the part of the electricity board? 4. Whether the complainant was entitled to compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, requires the licensee to give not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to the consumer before disconnecting the supply of energy. In the present case, such notice was not given and therefore, the disconnection was illegal. 2. Section 24(2) of the Act prohibits the licensee from exercising the powers of disconnection until the Electrical Inspector has given his decision, where a difference or dispute is referred to the Inspector before notice is given under Section 24(1). In the present case, the complainant had applied to the Chief Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Act questioning the correctness of the meter and therefore, the disconnection was violative of Section 24(2). 3. The disconnection of the complainant's service connection constituted deficiency in service on the part of the electricity board as it was unauthorized, illegal, and improper. 4. The complainant was entitled to compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the electricity board.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum. The court reduced the compensation awarded by the District Forum from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 7,500/- and directed the electricity board to pay the said sum with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of restoration of supply.
Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President — The appellants, who are the respondents in C.D. No. 148/1993 on the file of the Nalgonda District Forum, question the order of that District Forum dated 9.10.1996 allowing the said C.D. in part. The respondent in this appeal was the complainant in that C.D.
2. The complainant approached the District Forum on 25.9.1993 complaining that the supply of electrical energy to his rice mill named Harshavardhana Modern Rice Mill at Bhongir, which has been receiving electrical energy under Service Connection No. 222, was disconnected on 25.8.1993 in spite of the dispute raised by him about the correctness of the meter and the bills raised for the energy consumption of his rice mill for May, 1993 and June, 1993 at Rs. 4,185/- and Rs. 99,094/- respectively. After the complainant raised a dispute about the correctness of the meter for his Service Connection No. 222, the respondents got the meter removed and installed a new meter on 22.7.1993 and got the disputed meter tested on 24.8.1993. According to the complainant, the respondents contended that the meter was correct. According to the complainant, die usual consumption of his rice mill used to be around 650 units per month, and the consumptions recorded by the disputed meter for the months of May and June, 1993 were 1960 units and 49,990 units respectively, which were far above the average consumption of about 650 units per month. The complainant protested against the finding of the Authorities concerned as regards the correctness of the meter, to no effect. On 25.8.1993 the supply of the energy to his rice mill was disconnected on the ground that he defauled in the payment of the bills for May and June, 1993 for Rs. 4,185/- and Rs. 99,094/- respectively.
3. After the complainant approached the District Forum, he made an application to the Chief Electrical Inspector on 1.12.1993 raising dispute about the said bills. The Chief Electrical Inspector finally gave his report dated 27.5.1994; a copy of that report was marked as Ex. A-13 in the C.D. before the District Forum. The Chief Electrical Inspector observed that the Divisional Engineer (Operation), Bhongir in his reply contended that it was not correct to say that the consumer had been consuming only 800 units in a month and that in fact "the consumer has colluded with the meter reading and got the consumption postponed by means of fraudulent and manipulated monthly meter readings and with the change of meter reading the actual reading for 6/93 i.e. 87,773 was noted". The Divisional Engineer also claimed that there was no fault in the meter. The Chief Electrical Inspector, after going through the record, held as follows:
"On perusal of the record presented by Sri Chakrapani and representatives of A.P. State Electricity Board, it is observed that the consumption of 49,990 units in the month of June, 1993 is not in order. According to Divisional Engineer, Operation, it is the accumulation of the consumption of the previous months which was not correctly recorded by the previous meter reader and also no slippage was observed in the meter. The point of dispute is now limited to whether meter is defective or it is accumulation of previous consumption. The Divisional Engineer has not substantiated for accumulation of consumption i.e. from which period to which period and proof of it. On perusal of the test report given by the MRT Wing of A.P. State Electricity Board, it is observed that tests have not been conducted on the meter required, under IS 772 for ascertaining the fault in the meter, but simply enclosed the test report which reads as follows:
'Test carried out'
'Meter Body cover opened and registering mechanism checked and found no breakage of dial teeth, no slippage of the Register is observed.'
4. The meter under dispute was installed with the initial reading 0085 on 26.9.1989 and the check reading taken by Divisional Engineer/ DPE II Hyderabad on 6.1.1992 is 2544.6 i.e. the consumption of 25
