Petitioner was opposite party before the District Forum. Complainant-respondent had taken an electric connection from the petitioner. Sanctioned load of the meter was 97.750 KW. The meter of the respondent was replaced by the petitioner with a new electronic meter on 28.3.1997. SDO (operation) of the area used to take meter reading between 19th to 22nd of every month. On his first visit, after change of the meter, SDO claimed that the respondent-respondent was using extra load compared to the sanctioned load. According to the respondent, he had installed two motors of 40 HP each and five motors of 5 HP each, the total of which comes to 105 HP, which cannot exceed 80 KW. Respondent asked the SDO to personally verify the capacity of the installed meter. It was asserted by him that before the change of the new meter, there had never been any complaint regarding use of excessive load and, therefore, new meter installed by the respondent-complainant was faulty. Petitioner issued a bill for Rs.1,15,800/- to the respondent which included the penalty amount of Rs.23,574/- for consumption of extra load and Rs.15,509/- as penalty for power factor. After taking permission from opposite party, respondent deposited Rs.92,226/-, without the penalty amount of Rs.23,574/-. After depositing Rs.92,226/-, respondent challenged the correctness of the meter by depositing Rs.500/- towards ‘challenging fee’ on 28.4.1997 (receipt No. 216). SDO alongwith Engineer of manufacturing company of the meter visited the premises of the respondent on 28.4.1997 and adjusted one of the indicators of the electric meter installed in the presence of some respectable persons. After the adjustment of the indicator of the meter, meter started running correctly and there was no indication of extra load being extracted or excessive consumption. Respondent then filed the complaint by challenging the imposition of penalty amount of Rs.23,574/- for consumption of extra load(MD) and Rs.15,509/- for power factor. The District Forum dismissed the compliant by observing thus:- “In the present case, the complainant has not moved any application to the Electrical Inspector with regard its accuracy of the meter in question at any time. Nor he had raised any objection with regard to its accuracy at the time of installation of dated 28.3.97. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances which has come on the record, I of the considered view that the complaint is devoid of any merits and misconceived as is not maintainable because the matter should have been referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector in accordance with the provisions of section 26 sub section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which deals with the difference or dispute arisen with regard to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the meter. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, the complainant is at its liberty refer its disputed by filing an application to the Chief Electrical Inspector who shall be deciding the same after giving due notice to the Ops in accordance with the aforesaid provisions or rules and regulations of the Board in this regard.” Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum by observing as under:- “Having gone through the record and averments made in the complaint, we are of the view that once the Complainant had challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing Rs.500/- as meter challenge fee, the onus was on the OPs to prove by a report after a checking of the meter that it was correct or otherwise. Since the Complainant had challenged the accuracy of the meter, as directed by OP No. 2, which has not been rebutted by the Ops, the learned District Forum has erred in holding against the Complainant that he did not move any application to the Electrical Inspector and that there is no report of the meter testing laboratory. In fact, it was for the OPs to produce the report of meter testing as done on 28.4.97 by the engineer of the manufacturing company in the presence of S.D.O. as well as some other respectable members of the society. Further to prove the correctness of the meter, it was for the OPs to prove by cogent evidence that the Complainant had been using additional machinery/motors/electric equipments whereby his load exceeded the sanctioned load. However, this has not been done and there is no evidence or any plea taken by the OPs that the Complainant had installed motors of higher capacity or more in number so as to result in excess load being drawn. It is clearly the case of the Complainant that before this checking on 22.4.97 and thereafter, the load of the Complainant was never found exceeding the sanctioned load. It is also our observation that the learned District Forum has failed to take cognizance of the affidavits of those persons who were present in the premises of the Complainant on 28.4.97 when the checking of the meter was done based on the meter challenge complaint. Had the OPs placed the report of the checking done on 28.4.97 and proved by it that the meter was correct; the Complainant would have had no cause. However, having failed to produce any report of the said checking and also having failed to produce any affidavits on record of the engineer of the manufacturing company of the meter or the S.D.O. confirming the fact that the meter is correct, the contention of the OPs that the meter is correct cannot be accepted on its face value. More so, in the absence of any other evidence to show that the Complainant had installed heavier capacity of motors or additional motors/electronic equipment because of which the load exceeded the sanctioned load. The extension of load by the Complainant should have also been proved by the OPs by leading cogent evidence of the additional appliances/motors being used by the Complainant. The Complainant has clearly indicated the number and power of motors being used in the premises and the OPs have not controverted the same. There is also no evidence on record that the low power indicator was because of non-installation of the capacitor of the equipment. We also find no justification in the observation of the learned District Forum that the Complainant did not challenge the correctness of the meter at the time of installation as the Complainant at that point in time had no reason to suspect that the meter was incorrect.” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. District Forum had non-suited the respondent on the ground that he had not challenged the accuracy of the meter before the Chief Electrical Inspector. This finding was factually incorrect. Respondent had challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing Rs.500/- towards ‘meter challenge’ fee. Thereafter, onus was on the petitioner to prove whether the same was correct or otherwise. There is no evidence on record to show that the respondent had been using additional machinery/motors or electric equipment whereby his load exceeded the sanctioned load. SDO alongwith engineer of the manufacturing company of the meter visited the premises of the complainant and adjusted one of the indicators of the electric meter. After the adjustment of the electric meter, meter was running correctly and there was no indication of any additional load being consumed by the respondent. It seems that because of mis-adjustment/mal-functioning of the indicator, the meter was incorrectly showing inflated consumption of electricity. After the adjustment of indicator, the meter showed correct reading. After that there was no indication that any extra load was being extracted or there was any excessive consumption by the respondent. For the reasons stated, we do not find any merit in this revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed. |
