Sdo, Electricity ‘op’ Sub-division No. 9, Sector 43, Chandigarh Vs. Jai Gopal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Judgment:

K.C. Gupta, President:

1. Briefly stated the facts are that Sh. Jai Gopal (complainant) is a subscriber of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. 409/4402/042200R installed at his premises. He had been regularly charged as per actual meter readings upto 13.12.2000, on which date the meter became dead at reading 6873.

2. It was next averred that the electricity department instead of changing the dead stop meter, continued sending the bills on average consumption basis. Initially, the average consumption was fixed at 560 units for each billing period of two months from the bill dated 2.5.2002, thereafter, @ 600 units per billing period w.e.f. bill dated 2.9.2003 onwards and then, the average consumption was arbitrarily increased to 800 units per bi-monthly billing period from the bill dated 2.5.2005. The photo copies of the said bills are Annexures C-1 to C-3.

3. It was next averred that the complainant Shri Jai Gopal was out of India as he had shifted to Australia along with his family and the entire house remained locked upto 31.7.2005. However, his relatives and representatives had made application for change of dead stop meter and it was ultimately changed on 2.8.2005.

4. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed and stated that the bills on the basis of average for the 4-6 months preceding the period could only be charged for a maximum period of six months in total prior to 1.8.2005 and, as such, the remaining amount should be refunded to him. He also claimed interest @ 18% p.a on the entire amount and also compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000 besides costs of the litigation, etc.

5. The OP i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity Department contested the complaint and stated that the complainant had not referred his dispute to the Electrical Inspector, U.T., Chandigarh as envisaged under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It further stated that the bills already rendered to the consumer prior to 1.8.2005, he had been charged on ad hoc average basis and revisable on the basis of future/previous consumption of the consumer, which was under process. On merits, he denied the allegations and stated that the complaint should be dismissed.

6. The parties led evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.

7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh vide order dated 24.4.2006 accepted the complaint as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the OP has filed the appeal bearing No. 608 of 2006. Another appeal was filed by the complainant bearing No. 612 of 2006. The appeal was filed by the OP i.e. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity Department for setting aside the order dated 24.4.2006 while appeal was filed by the complainant Shri Jai Gopal for directing the electricity department that rent was not to be charged during the period the meter remained dead stop and further on the average basis of consumption, the electricity department could charge the amount only for a period of six months at the maximum.

9. Since, common question of law and facts is involved in both the appeals, so the same are decided by common judgments.

10. We have heard Sh. Rajinder Singh, Deputy District Attorney on behalf of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity Department, Sh.Sanjiv Walia, Advocate along with Sh.Pardeep Verma, Advocate for Sh. Jai Gopal and carefully gone through the file.

11. It is an admitted fact that the electricity department had charged the complainant Sh. Jai Gopal on ad hoc average basis for the consumption of electricity w.e.f. 1.2.2001 to 31.7.2005 as the meter remained dead from February 2001 to 31.7.2005 and the same was replaced on 1.8.2005 vide MCO No. V-A/193. It is also admitted by the electricity department that since the complainant was charged on ad hoc average basis, it is revisable on the basis of consumers future or previous consumption pattern, whichever the higher as per Chandigarh Administration Notification bearing No. GI/2K/60-A dated 16.2.2000, Annexure R-2. It was also stated by the electricity department in the written reply that the meter of the complainant could not be replaced and the bill was rendered on ad hoc average basis. The circular, whose copy is annexure R-2 dated 16.2.2000 under the heading for domestic and non-residential consumers, reads as under :

“(ii) For domestic and non-residential consumers—

On the receipt of report regarding a meter becoming defective, dead stop or burnt, it should be immediately replaced and necessary inquiries conducted. The meter along with report should be forwarded to the AEE/M and P for further action. So far as charging the consumer for the period the meter remained inoperative is concerned, the average consumption of the last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption as under and higher of the two figures shall be charged on provisional basis—