(As per A.A. Jain , Hon’ble Member)
Complainant filed this complaint against Opposite Party for seeking various reliefs as per prayer clause.
1. Complainant’s case in short is that he has got electric connection in the name of his late father named Atalmal in his house for domestic use. The meter showing proper reading for consumption of electric energy i.e. about 250 unit per month, But in the month of Jan.2005 opponent has changed the meter and installed new meter No.9040147775 which showed excess reading to the consumption looking to past average consumption. Complainant on 20-11-2006 applied for checking the correctness of meter by paying checking charges of Rs.25/- .But O.P.failed to check the meter and regularly issued the electric bill of excess reading amount, On 16-08-07 O.P. issued notice to complainant to pay the arrears bill else he will disconnect the electric supply of complainant within 15 days. Complainant submit that O.P. has to check the meter within 2 months but he failed to do so. Complainant prayed to quashe the notice issued by O.P. on dt.16-08-07 and direction to O.P. to check the meter with payment of Rs.5000/- as harassment charges and Rs.2000/- as the cost of the case.(Ext.1).
2. In response to notice u/s 13 of C.P.Act 1986 O.P. appeared and filed his reply (Exh.10). O.P. submitted that complainant is not consumer because the meter is in the name of his deceased father. O.P. specially pleaded that the disputed meter No.9040147775 of connection No.430010149155 was replaced by new meter No. MS 293976 on 1-10-2007 in the presence of complainant O.P. submitted that the N.A. with J.E.(Testing Unit) has tested the meter on spot by ACCU instrument in the presence of the complainant and panch prior to taking action for replacement of disputed meter. O.P. further submitted that meter was found 2% fast which is permissible limit of + 5% under I.S.rules. The sanctioned load of the consumer is 2.5 K.W. but complainant is using 4.806 K.W. Thus complainant is using excess energy than sanctioned load which is unauthorized use of electricity which is offence u/s 126 of Electricity Act 2003 . Thus the bills issued from Jan.2006 are excess consumption as alleged by complainant is false and bogus. O.P. submitted that complainant has not paid electric bill from 13-06-2006 , If there is any dispute than complainant should pay bill under protest. As complainant has not come with clean hands so complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
3. On verifying all the record thoroughly and hearing arguments of complainant (O.P. absent at the time of argument) only point arise for our consideration is that : Whether complainant is entitled for relief as sought in complain and our finding is in “ affirmative” due to following reasons.
REASONS
A. The electric meter connection is in the name of complainant’s deceased father late Atalmal s/o Meghrajmal Bhaktani. Complainant was paying all electric charges to O.P. by his father’s name since long. Thus complainant is consumer as defined under Section (2)(d)(ii) which state that :
“Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 2[hires or avails of ] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person 3[but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].”
Thus complainant falls under the orbit of ‘beneficiary’ and thus he is consumer of O.P.
5. Complainant has doubt that electric meter of O.P. is running ‘fast’ showing excessive readings contrary to his actual consumption of energy. So he had complained to O.P. for excess billing and and applied for meter testing and had paid Rs.25/- on 21-11-2006 towards testing charges. But O.P. has not taken any action for checking or testing the electric meter of complainant.
As per Section 14.4.3 of Mah.Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations, 2005, The Distribution Licensee shall provide a copy of the meter test report to the consumer within a period of two months from the date of request for testing of meter by the consumer. When complainant filed this complaint against O.P. on 05-09-2007. Then O.P. woke up after 11 months and tested the electric meter of complaint and found that the meter seal was O.K. , the speed of moving the meter while recording consumption found O.K. and meter was not faulty or tampered. The meter was found 2% fast which is in permissible limit. The percentage error is permissible + 5% under I.S. Rules. If there is any complaint about fast moving of meter and checking fees was already paid, then this is duty of O.P. to check the meter immediately and satisfied the doubt of his valuable consumer. But for only checking the meter in presence of Panch and complainant by movable ACCU instrument on the spot which takes the time of 11 month or O.P. was waiting for filing complaint against it. This is clear example of deficiency in service on the part of O.P.
6. O.P. submitted that the sanctioned load of complainant is 2.5 K.W. but complainant was using total connected load of 4.806 K.W. At the time of argument complainant argued that connected load amy be 4.806 K.W. But complainant never used more than 2.00 K.W. The 1ist of connected lad is as under :
Bulbs 2 Nos. x 60 W. = 120 W
TVs 3Nos. x 600 W = 600 W
Tube lights 4 Nos. x 40 W. = 160 W
CLF Bulbs 11 Nos.x 20 W. = 220 W
Fans 11 Nos.x 60 W. = 660 W
Freeze 2 Nos. x 200 W. = 400 W
Motor Pump 1 No. x 746 W. = 746 W
W/Machine 2 Nos. x 200 W. = 400 W
Gizer 1 No. x 1500 W. = 1500 W
Total = 4.806 W
Complainant submitted that Gizer was used for only 1 or 2 hours in winter season, similarly washing machine is used for maximum 2 hours, motor pump also is used for 2-3 hours, All lights, bulbs, fans are used partly in night only. All equipments and lights were never used at a time. So the complainant using maximum upto 2.00 K.W.
7. O.P. specifically stated that the consumer is using electricity regularly but he had neglected to pay the electric bills with ulterior intention. Consumer has paid the last bill on 13-06-2006. If there is doubt about fast movement of meter than consumer may paid bills under protest then complainant submitted that after payment of bills, O.P. will not take any action about the checking of correctness of meter. In this point complainant submit that due to bad experience of consumer he has not paid the bill. If he paid regular bill than O.P. will not wake up 2-3 years.
8 Opposite party submitted one Case Law : U.P. Electricity Board Vrs. Syed Faiz-Ur-Rehman Revision No. 102/SC/2002 decided on 03-12-20034 by U.P.C.D.R.Commission Lucknow. But the facts of that case are different from the case in hand.
9. O.P.has given clean chit about theft charges. And at the time of inspection meter seals were found O.K. There was no any charges of tempering the meter . So due to deficiency on the part of O.P. that not checking the electric meter for long time and checking was done after filing this complaint . Hence we proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed.
2. Notice dt.16-08-2007 issued by O.P.hereby quashed .
3. O.P.is directed to issue fresh bill of electricity energy used by complainant without charging any interest and delay payment charges within one month from the receipt of this order.
4. Complainant is directed to pay electric bills within one month from the receipt of corrected electric bill, else O.P. is at liberty to take necessary action against complainant as per law.
5. Under the circumstances of case, no order as to cost.
