04-12-2015 -  The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

 Due to long and uncertain period of absence of the Members, single member bench of President is functioning in their absence, in view of the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2014, in the matter of Mr. Netaji Surrendra Mohan Nayyar -vs- Citibank; and the judgment passed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the W.P. (C) No. 30939 of 2010 (N) P.K. Jose –vs- M. Aby & ors.

2.    On 09.10.2015 the following order was passed.

“Inspite of the order dated 10.02.2015, nobody appears for the parties. However, put up on 04.12.2015 for final hearing/for passing ex-parte order”.

3. Today again nobody appears for the parties.

4. Perused the records.

5. On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of 26 days in filing this appeal condoned.

6. The complainant filed the present case for rectification of the electrical bill of December, 2007 demanding Rs. 53,977/- as “other charges” and DPS (Delayed Payment Surcharge) of Rs. 945.48 and also the bill for the month of January, 2008, besides compensation etc.

7.  According to the respondent – complainant the O.Ps. – appellants (JSEB for short), removed the old Electro Magnetic Meter and installed an electronic meter in his premises on 05.12.2007. A report of the same was handed over to him. In December, 2007 the meter reading started from zero and he consumed 5239 units, the charge of which he paid. But in the bill for December, 2007 JSEB wrongly and illegally charged          Rs. 53,977/- under the heading of “other charges” and Rs. 945.48 as DPS. Such amount was increasing in subsequent bills without his fault. He submitted an application before O.P. -3 – appellant no. - 4 – Assistant Electrical Engineer Supply, Madhupur on 21.01.2008 followed by a reminder dated 28.01.2008 and a legal notice on 28.01.2008 but nothing was done to rectify the said bills. JSEB sent a 7 day’s notice for disconnection with a warning to deposit Rs. 79,022/- within a week. Due to such illegal steps taken by JSEB his business was at stake.

8. Appellant no. -4 in his written version filed before the learned District Forum, admitted the replacement of old meter by electronic meter on 05.12.2007. But it was alleged that on inspection of the records, it appeared that the complainant was indulging in unauthorized use of electricity to the extent of Rs. 59,377/- and unless half of the assessed amount was deposited, no appeal could be filed. The details of assessment of the said amount was mentioned in para 9 and 10.

No written version was filed on behalf of the other O.Ps. – appellants.

9. The complainant filed evidences on affidavit, who supported his case. He also filed documentary evidence.

10. On the other hand, appellant no. -4 filed evidences on affidavit of two official witnesses.

11. There is no dispute that on 05.12.2007 the meter of the complainant was replaced by an electronic meter, which was functioning properly and at that time the seal of the old meter was found intact. The complainant requested appellant no. -4 to furnish the reasons for charging Rs. 53,977/- as “other charges” in the bill for the month of December, 2007. Prior to filing of the complaint, the JSEB never informed the complainant that he was indulging in unauthorized use of electricity and that JSEB has made assessment as per Section 126 of Indian Electricity Act (Act for short). For the first time, in the written version before the District Forum, such allegations were made, without saying clearly that Rs. 53,977/- under the heading of “other charges” in December, 2007 bill, was the amount assessed under Section 126 of the Act. The JSEB could not prove that there was any valid inspection and as to who made the alleged assessment. The JSEB made contradictory statements by saying that on inspection of previous and present records maintained by different persons, it came to conclusion that the complainant was indulging in unauthorized use of electricity. JSEB did not say that any order of provisional assessment was made and was served on the complainant asking him to file objection and then final assessment was made. Rather even when the complainant sent letters asking for the basis of the impugned charges, no reply was given to him disclosing any reason. JSEB has also not said that the complainant was using the electricity unauthorizedly by any of the five means described in the Act.

12. Thus, the impugned demand was raised without any basis, and therefore, it was clearly a case of deficiency in service. The JSEB could not prove that the complainant indulged in unauthorized use of electricity and for which recourse to Section 126 and 127 of the Act was taken.

13. It appears that JSEB had argued before District Consumer Forum that in view of the Sections 126 and 127 of the Act the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction.

14. Learned District Forum rightly held that the remedy in Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, and moreover, there was nothing to show that JSEB had taken recourse to the said provisions. It has also rightly held that the appellants could not show anything in support of the impugned demand in December, 2007 bill.

15. The District Forum rightly directed the JSEB to rectify the bill of December, 2007 deducting Rs. 59,377/- as “other charges” and pay         Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost. Liberty was given to JSEB for taking recourse to the said provisions of Electricity Act.

16. In my opinion, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

Ranchi,

Dated:- 04-12-2015