IMPORTANT POINT
Inspection has to be done in presence of consumer of electricity.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—In this revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 1.2.2010 passed by Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (for short ‘State Commission’). Vide impugned order, State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts are that respondent/complainant is widow of late Dr.Surendra Narayan, in whose name electricity connection under domestic category for 1 KW was there. Meter of respondent was defective and she had been paying electric bills regularly on fixed rate of 200 united per month. She paid all the bills upto February, 2002. On 1.11.2001, she purchased a new meter and submitted to the petitioners/opposite parties for its verification and testing and after that it was installed removing the old one.

3. It is alleged by the respondent that suddenly she received an electric bill of Rs.41,612.28 for the month of March, 2002 under commercial category. Thereafter, another bill of Rs.48,414.07 for the month of June, 2002 was sent to her. She made several representations to the petitioners but in vain. After that on 29.8.2002, a complaint was filed before District Consumer Protection Forum, Bhagalpur (for short ‘District Forum’) against Bihar State Electricity Board and others for deficiency in service, as bill under commercial service category was raised without any joint inspection. Respondent prayed for issuance of fresh bill as per meter reading without interest and also claimed compensation of Rs.1 lakh for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

4. In the written statement, petitioners defence is that the meter of respondent was defective and accordingly she was being billed on the basis of average consumption. The respondent paid the bill upto February, 2002 under domestic category. Since March, 2002, the bill was issued to the respondent under commercial category. On 11.7.2001, inspection of the premises of respondent was carried out by the Team of the Board wherein, it was found that respondent was using 3 KW load under commercial category, in place of sanctioned load of 1 KW under domestic category. It is further stated that respondent never paid any of the bills since March, 2002, either under domestic category or under commercial category. Hence, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to get any reliefs. It is also stated that the person who fraudulently and dishonestly consume or abstract the energy is not the consumer of the Board.

5. District Forum vide order dated 5.6.2006, allowed the complaint of the respondent and passed the following order;

(i) The bill issued under commercial category is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to issue the fresh bill under domestic category on meter reading without charging any interest.

(ii) To inspect the premises of the complainant, within 15 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order. If the complainant is found using electricity for running shop in any portion of the premises, the new electric connection under commercial category may be installed immediately.

(iii) The said inspection report may be given to the complainant after getting her consent and signature over it.

(iv) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as a cost of litigation within 45 days from the order. The said bill may be adjusted against the fresh bill of the complainant.”

6. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed its appeal by the impugned order.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the bill in question was raised on the basis of surprise inspection done by the officials of the petitioners and respondent was found using 3 KW load against the sanctioned load of 1 KW. The electricity was also found being used in running “Shop” in the said premises, which comes