Back
CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.K. Agarwal, President, Veena Misra and R.S. Awasthi, Members
C.G. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL - Respondent
Appeal No. 515 of 2006
Decided on : 05-06-2007
Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sanjay Tiwari, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the justification for raising an additional electricity bill and the absence of deficiency in service were crucial in reaching the decision.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Electric Meter Dispute - Section 15, Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act - The court discussed the checking reports of the electric meter, the presence of the complainant's representative during inspections, and the justification for raising an additional electricity bill. The court found that one phase of the electric meter was found to be disconnected, justifying the additional bill. The court also concluded that there was no deficiency in service, and the complaint was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which allowed the complaint of the respondent, a hospital, regarding the electric meter installed in its premises and the additional electricity bill served by the Electricity Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the additional bill was justified based on the checking reports and confirmed that there was no deficiency in service. The court allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was justified in issuing the additional bill based on the checking report of the electric meter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the checking of the electric meter was conducted in the presence of the complainant's representative and that one phase of the meter was found to be disconnected, justifying the additional bill. The court also concluded that there was no deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The complaint was dismissed.
ORDER
V.K. Agarwal, President - This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 7.8.2006, in Complaint No. 13 of 2005 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja-Ambikapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum' for short) by which the complaint of the respondent was allowed and it was directed that the electric meter installed in his premises, be got tested by the Electrical Inspector and the payment of additional electricity bill dated 8.9.2004 shall remain suspended till the meter was tested by the Electrical Inspector and that the payment of the said additional electricity bill dated 8.9.2004 would be subject to the satisfaction of the complainant with the test report of the Electrical Inspector. Besides, costs of the complaint was also awarded.
2. Indisputably, the complainant/respondent is a hospital and had obtained an electric connection from the appellant/Electricity Board. It is also not in dispute that the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant/respondent was inspected by the Superintending Engineer, Vigilance of the appellant/Electricity Board on 7.5.2003. Thereafter, an additional bill of Rs. 3,63,147 was served on the complainant/respondent.
3. The averments of the complainant were that the inspection and checking undertaken by the Superintending Engineer of the appellant/ Electricity Board on 7.5.2003, was without any intimation and notice to the complainant/ respondent. It was further averred that the said additional bill of Rs. 3,63,147 was for the period from May 2003 to July 2004. It was further averred that the complainant never interfered with electric meter and that the conclusion of the test report dated 7.5.2003 by the Superintending Engineer, Vigilance that one phase of the said electric meter was found to be disconnected, was totally baseless and arbitrary. It was averred that the said bill was sent to the complainant / respondent without any justification. It was, therefore, prayed that the said additional bill dated 8.9.2004 as also the subsequent bills relating to the consumption of electricity till 31.12.2004 be directed to be reviewed and matter be referred to the Electrical Inspector.
4. The complaint as above was resisted by the OP/appellant-Electricity Board. It was averred that the checking on 7.5.2003 of the electric meter of the complainant/respondent was held in the presence of the complainant's representative. It was further averred that out of the three phases of electric connection in the said meter, one phase was found to be disconnected and dysfunctional. Therefore, on the basis of the said checking report dated 7.5.2003, the consumption of electricity by the complainant/respondent was revised and recalculated on the basis of which additional bill for Rs. 3,63,147 was served on the complainant/respondent, as per the rules of the appellant/Electricity Board. It was further averred that since the complainant/respondent raised objection to the checking report dated 7.5.2003, the meter was again got checked by the Electrical Inspector, who also confirmed that one of the phases of the meter was disconnected. Therefore, the additional bill served on the complainant/respondent was justified and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
5. The District Forum, by the impugned order, allowed the complaint and as noticed above directed that the payment of additional bill dated 8.9.2004 would be subject to checking and testing of the electric meter by the Electrical Inspector.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant/Electricity Board mainly was that since on inspection by the Superintending Engineer, Vigilance of the appellant/Electricity Board on 7.5.2003, one phase of the meter was found to be disconnected, as would be clear from the said report, an additional bill was justifiably raised after recomputatio
