Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Agrawal, President;
Mrs. Veena Misra & Mr. R.S. Awasthi, Members
SAJANDAS SANMUKHDAS —Appellant
versus
C.G. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. —Respondents
Appeal No. 30 of 2004—Decided on 3.3.2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Ms. Reeti Sonepipre, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Advocate.
The Electricity Board is entitled to recover charges for actual consumption of electricity and does not commit any deficiency in service by issuing additional bills based on actual consumption.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Electric Meter Dispute - The court affirmed the additional bill issued by the Electricity Board for the consumption of electricity, based on the actual consumption recorded by the meter. The court found that the Electricity Board was entitled to recover charges for actual consumption and did not commit any deficiency in service.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a consumer of the Electricity Board, disputed a revised bill amounting to Rs. 1,95,213 for the preceding 6 months, claiming that the meter and seals were intact and the revised bill should be quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the additional bill issued by the Electricity Board for the actual consumption of electricity was justified, as the meter recorded consumption of only 2 out of 3 phases due to carbon deposit, and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the interference of the meter and the billing based on the preceding 6 months' average consumption.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Electricity Board was entitled to recover charges for actual consumption of electricity and found no deficiency in service in issuing the additional bill.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court directed the appellant to bear the costs of the complaint and the appeal as well as that of the O.Ps.
Mr. R.S. Awasthi, Member—This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’) directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’) in Complaint No. 584/2002. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint.
2. Complainant has averred that he is a consumer of the O.P. having a three-phase electric connection and is enjoying the facility on payment of regular bills. On 29.4.2000, the meter in his premises was replaced by an electronic meter and Sr. No. 000207774 was installed. Meter reading for the said connection was recorded by the O.Ps. and payment of bills raised was also being made regularly.
3. On 26.8.2000, vigilance team of the O.P. in the absence of the complainant or his representative, opened the electronic meter and stated that the meter is not recording due to carbon in the cable joint of 2 phases in the CT wire. The complainant has no knowledge of the electronic meter or its components. On 13.9.2000, the complainant was served revised bill amounting to Rs. 1,95,213 for the preceding 6 months. Meter reading was recorded regularly by one Mr. Sharma an officer of the O.P. and the meter was examined in June, 2000 and found to be intact and in working order. Again in July, 2000 the meter was inspected by Mr. Meshram, an officer of the O.Ps., and found intact and in a working order. Even on 26.8.2000, the seals and the meter were found intact. It is prayed that despite the meter and seals being intact the revised bill for Rs. 1,95,213 be quashed and the amount deposited be directed to be adjusted in subsequent months.
4. O.Ps. in reply have stated that the C.T. meter installed for the service connection was opened and inspected on 26.8.2000 in the presence of the complainant by 3 vigilance officers of the O.Ps. It was detected that the joints of R and Y phases of CT meter were carbonized resulting in non supply of electric current and lower reading was being registered in the meter. Therefore, a revised bill for 44606 units of consumption was issued. The consumption was estimated on the basis of average consumption between 29.4.2000 to 28.8.2000. It is stated that the Panchnama and the Inspection Report bear the signature of the complainant in token of his presence.
5. It is also stated that the application made to the Settlement Committee has also been rejected. The service to the connection has been disconnected for non-payment of bills.
6. It is also stated that the complainant had also filed Civil Suit No. 174-A/02 for declaration and refund of amount paid which has been rejected. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the meter was interfered with and that the consumption assessed is not correct. It was stated that the electric connection was for a rice mill which is seasonal business. The consumption varies in a vast range from month to month. Therefore, the bills raised should be quashed. Learned Counsel for the O.Ps. defended the impugned order. It was submitted that the District Forum has considered all relevant aspects and there is no reason to interfere with the same.
7. Mainly the complainant’s grievance revolves around interference of the meter and billing on preceding 6 months average consumption. Copy of the inspection report dated 26.8.2000 is on record. It is stated by the O.Ps. on affidavit that the said report bears the signature of the O.P./his representative along with that of 3 vigilance officers obtained at the time of inspection. Although the complainant has categorically denied having any knowledge of such inspection but there is no attempt to file any counter affidavit or cross-examine the O.Ps. on this point nor the signature on the Panchnama been categorically denied. Therefore, the allegation that the meter was interfered/manipulated or the inspection carried out without the knowledge of the complainant cannot b
