Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. This appeal is filed by the original complainant against the order dtd. 20.12.2004 passed by District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in consumer complaint No.77/2003, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant has been partly allowed giving direction to the opposite party (for short O.P.) to issue revised bill of electricity consumption to the complainant in respect of amount due from him, by not applying interest and penalty over the amount due and by giving accounts of the same and also to pay him cost of Rs.500/-
2. It is not disputed that the O.P. provided electric connection to the complainant for running his rice mill. The O.P. during inspection by flying squad found that the meter was stopped. Moreover, the meter was changed and thereafter also the O.P. found that the said meter was also stopped. It is alleged by the O.P. that the complainant by tampering with that meter stopped the meter twice. Therefore, the disputed bills were issued dtd. 26.12.2002, 05.04.2003 and 14.01.2003 which are challenged by the complainant by filing consumer complaint before the Forum. The complainant mainly alleged that the meter ought to have been sent to the Electrical Inspector vide Section 26(6) on Electricity Act, 1910 and upon getting his report the bills ought to have been issued.
3. The O.P. challenged that complaint by filing reply. The O.P. raised the same contention before the Forum that the meter was stopped by the complainant by tampering with and it was required to be changed twice and on the basis of information submitted by the complainant about actual use of the electricity, disputed bills were issued.
4. The Forum after considering evidence brought on record by both parties and hearing both parties and by relying on the case of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. Sapya Trust & Sarkar Trust & Ors., reported in 2002(2) Mh.L.J. 558 came to the conclusion that as the meter was only stopped and not faulty, it was not necessary to refer the same to Electrical Inspector vide Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. Thus, disagreeing with the submission of the complainant as raised vide Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, the Forum passed the impugned order as above.
5. This order is challenged before us in this appeal by the original complainant. The learned advocate Mr A U Kullarwar appearing for the appellant / original complainant, relied on the following decisions in support of his submission that it was mandatory for the O.P. to refer the meter to Electrical Inspector vide Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910.
i. Y N Gupta Vs. D. E. S. U., I(1993) CPJ 27 (NC).
It is held that when the electricity meter is defective, it is the duty of DESU to maintain correct electricity meter.
- Neelkamal Industries Vs. M P Electricity Board, 2002 (1) CPR 190 (NC).
It is observed that when the meter is found faulty and supplementary bill was raised, it was necessary to refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector for obtaining his report before issuing supplementary bill.
- Ajmer Viddyut Vitaran Nigam Vitaran Nigam Ltd Vs. Suman Devi, II(2011) CPJ 294.
It is observed that when the meter was defective, the electricity supplier ought to have taken immediate steps for changing defective meter and for that changing defective meter the consumer cannot be penalised.
- A.V.V.N.L. & Ors. Vs. Bhanvar Lal, IV(2011) CPJ 505 (NC)
In that case, the electricity meters were found defective and therefore, the electricity supplier cannot take advantage of its own wrong and therefore bills were quashed & direction was given to issue revised bills on actual electricity consumption.
6. Thus, relying of the same decisions, the learned advocate of
the appellant submitted that as in the instant case the meter was not referred to the Electrical Inspector before issuing supplementary bills specified in the complaint, the Forum erred in not directing the O.P. to refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector for getting report and for issuing revised bills as per his report. He, therefore, requested that the impugned order may be set aside and direction may be given to that effect for referring the meter to the Electrical Inspector and then for issuing bills on the basis of his report.
7. On the other hand, advocate of the respondent, appearing for the O.P., submitted that under the impugned order the same decision which was relied upon by the Forum below has been referred to in the impugned order. He also submitted that the complainant ought to have filed the appeal against that revised bills under the provisions of Claus No.31(e) of Supply Conditions and hence complaint was not maintainable before the Forum.
8. We find from the material placed before us that the meter was actually stopped functioning and it was not a faulty meter. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case referred to in the impugned order, i.e. the case of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. Sapya Trust & Sarkar Trust & Ors., has observed that when the meter had only stopped functioning, such a meter is not covered under Section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910. We find the said decision has been rightly considered by the Forum for not accepting the case of the original complainant for referring the meter to the Electrical Inspector.
9. We also find that since the bills were issued after taking due consideration of the electricity consumption of the complainant and since the meter was only stopped functioning, it was not necessary to refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector as observed in the aforesaid case. Thus we find no fault or error in the impugned order. All the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate of the appellant are pertaining to the defective meter and not regarding the meter which is stopped functioning as in the present case and therefore, they are not applicable to the present case. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. No order as to costs in this appeal.
iii. Copy of the order be supplied to both parties free of cost.
