The brief facts of the case are that as per the Complainant s electricity bill for the period from 27/08/2008 to 23/12/2009 was billed at exorbitantly high rate where in the average consumption and the bill amount was around Rs 396/ for previous four months vide Bills  of February 08 was Rs 287/, March 08 was Rs 315/, April 08 was Rs 668/ and May 08 was    Rs 313/. When enquired, the Opposite Party, the MESEB informed verbally that his old meter was out of order and needed replacement and that prior to the replacement of the meter the bills would be charged at an average rate to be adjusted later. The Bills from July 2008 to December 2009 was Rs 18,357/ as calculated by the electricity board .Complainant mentioned that the amount charged was excessively high but paid Rs 12,000/ vide bill of October 2009 which left the balance to Rs 6,357/. Complainant wanted the Board to review the bill charged to him. On 23/12/2009 i.e. Bill for November 09 another bill of Rs 12,982/ was issued by the OP. Complainant requested several times to get his bill reviewed but the OP failed to respond to his grievances and hence this case. The Complainant has prayed before this Forum to direct the OP for 1. Review and rectification of the bills dated 27/08/2008 to 23/12/2009 by calculating at an average rate Rs 396/. 2. Cancellation of the bill dated 23/12/2009 amounting to Rs 12,982 and 3. Compensation of Rs 5,000/.

In the Show Cause the OP mentioned that the meter seal was tampered by Complainant right from the time when the meter became defective. The bill was raised on computed average at 460 units per month w.e.f  July 2008 to September 2009 as per clause 14.2 and not clause 14.1 of the Electricity Tariff issued by it. The Notice for replacement of defective meter was indicated in the electricity bill since the time the billing was done on computed average w.e.f the accounting month of July 2008 but there was no response from the Complainant. OP had issued a letter dated 20/08/2008 for replacement of defective meter but it was only on 16/10/2009, the Complainant handed over the new meter to the OP and the same was replaced on 22/10/2009. The OP also mentioned that the total bill of Rs 18,357/ relates to electricity bill for the period from the accounting month  July 2008 up to the accounting month October 2009 which was billed as per relevant electricity tariff. The said amount is excusive of the arrear for the accounting month of September 2009 and the delayed payment surcharged. The balance amount of Rs 6,357/is liable to be paid by Complainant, since the bill was prepared carefully as per electricity tariff. The balance amount was carried over to the accounting month of November 2009 along with the arrear bill for the accounting month September 2009 amounting to Rs 1,647/. The delayed payment charged for period from July 2008 to October 2009 was Rs 4172.35 and the bill of the accounting month November 2009 was Rs 805.65/ thus the total liability comes out to be Rs 12,981.23. The OP also mentioned that the petitioner tampered the meter seal right from the time when the meter became defective and the bills were carefully prepared on computed average as per the provision of the Electricity Tariff and consumption of energy. Therefore the question of review or rectification and cancellation does not arise.

The Complainant in his rejoinder denied the allegation of tampering of meter seal. He also mentioned that the OP failed to justify the amount of Rs 18,357/ in respect of the bills for the month July 2008 to December 2009 and another amount of Rs 12,982/ was imaginary and conceived by the OP.

Both the parties were heard and they gave their arguments in writing also. The Complainant reiterated the facts as mentioned in the petition and his rejoinder which mentioned that the average monthly consumption of electricity is Rs 396/ per month comparing bill dated 02/04/2008, 30/04/2008, 02/06/2008 and 30/06/2008. He was verbally informed that the old meter was out of order and needed replacement and that prior to the replacement the bills would be charged at an average rate to be adjusted later on and hence he prayed for revision and rectification of the bills dated 27/08/2008 to 23/12/2009 by calculating at an average rate of Rs 396/, cancellation of the bill dated 23/12/2009 which amounts to Rs 12, 982/ and Compensation of Rs 5000/. He also maintained that the alleged computed average  at 460  units per month w.e.f  July 2008 to September 2009 to an ordinary consumer was wrong and the average consumption should have been Rs 390/ by taking into account the old bills.

The OP in its written argument mentioned that the meter seal was tampered by the Complainant right from the time when the meter became defective. When the meter became defective the bill was raised on computed average at 460 units per month with effect from July 2008 up to the accounting month September 2009 as per clause 14.2 of the Electricity tariff and not clause 14.1 of the Electricity Tariff and as such the average monthly consumption of electricity would not amount to Rs 396/ per month. Notice for replacement of defective meter was indicated in the electricity bill every month right from the time when the billing was done on computed average w.e.f. the accounting month July 2008. A letter was issued to the Complainant for replacement of his old meter, however the Complainant handed over the new meter only on 16/10/2009 and the meter was replaced on 22/10/2009. The OP stated that they have never failed to attend to any request of the Complainant but the Complainant himself failed to respond or did not pay attention to the notice indicated in the electricity bills. The delay in replacing the meter was due to adamant attitude of the Complainant which is not the fault of the Electricity Board. The OP therefore concluded that the claim for payment of compensation for mental suffering etc is arising out of the Complainant s fault and adamant attitude and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

After going through all the records and submission made by both the parties this Forum makes the following observations

1. MESEB in their notices had mentioned about the defect of the meter.
2. Notice of defective meter was reflected in the electricity bills from time to time when the billing was done on computed average from the accounting month of July 2008. The fact had not been denied by the Complainant.
3. The Complainant has relied upon the bills on March 2008 to June 2008 for average computation wherein in the assessment as per clause 14.1 of the Electricity Tariff of the MESEB requires average consumption proceedings of six months.
4. The Bills generated after replacement of the defective meter is from the period July 2008 till October 2009 which is better period of average computed of the bill after replacement of the defective meter.

On the basis of these observations, this Forum is of the opinion that the computation done by the MESEB as per clause 14.2 of the Tariff Rules seems to be rational. Therefore we are not inclined to give any relief to the Claimant.

Case disposed off.