NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and M. Shreesha, Member
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Oswal Papers Pvt. Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No.1005 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 01/07/2014 in Complaint No. 51/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 19.8.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Tara Chand Singhal, Executive Engineer
For the Respondent:Mr. B. P. Agarwal, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The Consumer has to give notice to the licensee whereafter the licensee has to take specified steps to remove the defects in the meter.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – First appeal – Complaint filed - defect in the meter - impugned Bill - condonation of delay – Consumer to give notice – State Commission – First Appeal failed - statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- - dismissed. (Paras 4, 6, 7)
Result: First appeal dismissed.
ORDER
The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) by which the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein has been allowed and the impugned Bill dated 09.07.2013 for Rs.77,29,520.52 has been quashed/ set aside and the Appellant herein was permitted to send a fresh Bill for the disputed period after taking average of six months subsequent to 17.05.2013 and as per the Regulations the arrears can be recovered only for a maximum of six months, the fresh billing amount be calculated accordingly. The Complainant/ Respondent was directed to make the payment as per the fresh Bill. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and other expenses was also awarded.
2. As per office report the present Appeal has been filed with a delay of 43 days and an Application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Appellant.
3. Heard Mr. Tara Chand Singhal, Executive Engineer on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. B. P. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant/Respondent and perused the averments made in the Application seeking condonation of delay. In our considered opinion the delay has sufficiently been explained therefore we condone the delay and treat the Appeal as having been filed within limitation. The Application is allowed.
4. We have heard Mr. Tara Chand Singhal, Executive Engineer, who has appeared in person on behalf of the Appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant/ Respondent and perused the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Mr. Tara Chand Singhal, Executive Engineer, who has appeared for the Appellant stated that the meter was not defective but it was giving inaccurate reading as phase B was not showing any reading which may be on account of some defect in the wiring. According to him the provisions of Regulation 33 of the Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity- 2004, would be applicable, where the Appellant can issue the Bills for the entire period during which the meter remained inaccurate as per the MRI report/ laboratory tests and therefore the State Commission was not at all justified in restricting the raising of the bill for a period of six months from 17.05.2013 when the defect was detected.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant/ Respondent however referred to Regulation 30 (3) of the Electricity Regulations which was applicable during the relevant period, which specifically provide that the short amount can be recovered only for a period not exceeding six months. According to him in the Written Version filed by the Appellant before the State Commission, it has been specifically mentioned that the Complainant had sent letters in May, 2012 and September, 2012 complaining about the defective meter. However, it was corrected only on 17.05.2013, therefore, the period of six months would start from 17.05.2013 as rightly directed by the State Commission.
6. We have considered rival submissions and find that the defect in the meter was pointed out by the Complainant in May, 2012 followed in September, 2012 and the defect with the meter was rectified only on 17.05.2013. For ready reference Regulations 30 and 33 of the Regulations relied upon by the either side are reproduced below:
“Regulation 30
Defective Meter
1. In case the consumer or the licensee suspect a meter to be not functioning properly, he may give a notice to the other party and the accuracy of the meter shall be tested by the licensee on site or in its testing laboratory. In case the consumers so desires, the testing shall be arranged at laboratories designated for this purpose by the Electrical Inspector or the Central Electricity Authority.
2. In the event of the meter being found inaccurate, the excess amount recovered from the consumer may be adjusted in the subsequent two bills. If any additional amount is to be recovered from the co