Judgment:
Pritam Pal, President:
1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 21.11.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby while disposing of the complaint of respondent/Complainant bearing No. 353 of 2001, appellants were held entitled to charge 50% of the bill amount i.e. Rs. 5,050 and remaining amount of Rs. 5,050 was ordered to be refunded to the complainant within a period of 60 days from passing of the impugned order.
The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum.
2. In nutshell, suffice it to say that an electric connection bearing A/C No. ABSP-4 was installed in the name of Mahant Shreo Nath and after his death, complainant being his legal heir was consuming the electricity supplied by opposite parties. It was alleged that the bill No. 6681 dated 13.6.2001 served upon complainant by OPs for a sum of Rs. 27,025 included a sum of Rs. 10,099 on account of additional surcharge. However, no detail of the said amount was mentioned in the bill. According to the complainant, the said amount was illegal and arbitrary as all the bills were being paid regularly in time and the connection was installed for residential purpose and only one person was using the electricity. However, the complainant to avoid disconnection, deposited the bill and requested OPs to refund the excess amount of Rs. 10,099 but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps., complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.
3. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the connection was released in the name of Mahant Serio Nath and complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. It was further stated that the electric meter in question was burnt in the month of February, 2000 which was changed on 17.4.2000 vide MCO No. 11/2 dated 10.4.2000. It was pleaded that the said meter of the complainant was showing very less consumption for the period February to April,2000 and this fact was noticed by the internal audit department of OPs and as such the account of complainant was overhauled on the basis of electricity consumption of the newly installed meter for the period from February 2001 to April, 2001 and the difference of Rs. 10,099 was charged which the complainant had deposited without any protest. Hence, it was pleaded that there was nothing wrong in it and the complaint was liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing Counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that since OPs have taken into consideration the data of subsequent period and ignored the data of previous year, so they are entitled to charge 50% of the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 5,050 and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,050 would be refunded to the complainant. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite parties had filed appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Commission which has now been transferred to this Commission under the directions of Honble National Commission.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The learned Counsel for appellants/O.Ps. argued that the electric meter installed at the premises of complainant was defective/burnt which was changed on 17.4.2000. The said meter was showing less consumption and this fact was noticed by the internal audit department of the OPs and pointed out the matter through half-margin No. 69 dated 24.4.2001 and as such account of complainant was overhauled on the basis of electricity consumption of the newly installed meter and the amount of Rs. 10,099 was rightly charged from the complainant.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and also perused the Half Margin of Internal Audit Department, whose copy is placed on file which shows that the meter was defective/burnt and the same had been replaced against MCO No. 11/3 dated 10.4.2000 and account for the months of Feb to April, 2000 was overhauled on the average basis of the reading of the new meter for the months of February 2001 to April, 2001. It is not mentioned by the appellants by filing an affidavit of some responsible official as to how the department found the meter to be defective and showing less consumption. Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 states that when a dispute arises regarding the correctness or incorrectness of the meter, then the matter has to be decided by an Electrical Inspector and then on the basis of decision of the Electrical Inspector, the consumer has to be charged. However, no such procedure has been adopted in the instant case. There is no evidence on file that the meter was found to be defective and it was got checked from the M and P Lab or the same had been checked by fixing a parallel meter after giving notice to the consumer. In the absence of any proof of the meter being defective, the OPs were not competent to charge the complainant on average basis as the method adopted by the department was not in accordance with Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the OPs cannot charge the complainant simply on the basis of internal audit report without any basis.
In this view of our foregoing discussion, we find that the impugned order dated 21.11.2002 is well reasoned and justified in the given facts and circumstances of case. Consequently the appeal fails and stands dismissed.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.