20-04-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheets.

1.        Heard on the point of limitation.

          On being satisfied with the grounds the delay of about 18 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

2.       The case of the complainant-Respondent in brief, is that, she did not get monthly electric bill in March, 2008. On enquiry, she learnt that she has deposited excess amount. Accordingly the bill for March, April and June, 2008 were issued showing minus Rs. 748/-, Rs. 640/-, Rs. 419/- respectively. Thereafter a wrong bill for the month of October 2008 for Rs. 5,116/- was received, to which she protested and requested for correction, but no action was taken. Thereafter, in February, 2012 she received another wrong electric bill for Rs. 19, 620/- and on the ground of it’s non payment, her line was disconnected on 27.3.2012.  Again inspite of repeated requests, no action was taken for correction of the bills, though she was ready to pay the correct amount.

3.       According to the O.P- appellant – (JSEB, for short) the bills were correct and were prepared on the basis of meter reading. In the month of June, 2010 at the time of reading, the meter was found closed and as such the average bill was prepared and the complainant was asked to get the meter checked up but she did not do anything and continued non payment of electric bills. It was further said that in the month of February, 2012, after calculating the arrears and D.P.S. (Delayed Payment Surcharge), the amount accumulated to Rs. 19,620/- due to non payment of which, the electricity was rightly disconnected.

4.       The parties produced the oral and documentary evidences.

5.       The learned District Forum , after considering the respective cases of the parties in detail, allowed the complaint.

6.       The JSEB could not justify the bill for Rs. 5,116/- for the month of October, 2008. Inspite of repeated requests it was not corrected. JSEB did not file any chit of paper to show as to whether the objection of the complainant to the disputed bill was examined and what steps were taken. JSEB continued to charge DPS etc. on disputed amount and the purported dues continued to swell.

7.       Further the complainant in her petition dated 6.6.2012 clearly said that her average consumption of 11 months prior to the disputed bill came to 69 units which was not denied by the JSEB. The complainant was ready to pay the bill on the average amount till the correction was made, but JSEB was not ready to receive such amount.  Had the JSEB examined the grievances of the complainant of excess billing, the complainant would have paid the correct bill amount month to month and saved herself from accumulation of huge amount and the DPS etc.

8.       Under RTI, the JSEB supplied detail chart of January, 2008 to June 2010, which also supported the contention of the complainant.

9.       According to the complainant, the electric meter was in order. JSEB could not prove otherwise. Therefore, it has been rightly held that the electrical meter installed in the house of the complainant was in order when reading was recorded by the meter reader of JSEB, when he prepared the bill for the month of October, 2008.

10.     JSEB could not explain how the bill of October, 2008 jumped to Rs. 5,116/- from earlier monthly bills which were below Rs. 1000/-.Thus, it has been rightly held that the disputed bill was wrong, and JSEB also could not justify why average billing was done if the meter was in order.

11.     The learned District Forum has interalia observed that JSEB in order to avoid its responsibility to correct the disputed bills took a vague and wrong plea that the meter was closed. Moreover closing of the meter in June, 2010 had no concern with the disputed bill for the month of October, 2008 at which time there was no complaint regarding non functioning of meter. It also appears that the complainant’s line was disconnected on 27.3.2012 for non payment of the bill without any notice. It has been rightly held that the disputed bills of Rs. 5,116/- for the month of October, 2008 was wrong and despite repeated requests it was not corrected,  and the JSEB went increasing the wrong charges to the extent of  Rs. 19,620/- in February 2012 .

12.     It has also been held by the learned District Forum that the JSEB has not followed the provisions of section 56 of the Electricity Act. It has been rightly held by the learned District Forum that the bill no. 1265 for the month of October, 2008 for Rs. 5,116/- is wrong and inflated and further the disconnection of electric line of the complainant on 27.3.2012 was also illegal and all these actions on the part of the JSEB clearly established deficiency in service on its part.

13.     The learned District Forum had directed the JSEB to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost  and electric connection was to be restored within 30 days from the date  the judgment is communicated to JSEB. JSEB was also directed to correct the disputed bill and subsequent bills as per the law and submit revised bill to the complainant for its payment by her within 30 days of the receipt of the bill.

14.     After hearing the parties, and going through the records carefully, in our opinion, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned judgment.

15.     Mr. Sonu Prasad informs that JSEB has not complied with the said directions of learned District Forum. Further, JSEB, restored the electric line only after realizing the disputed bill amount.

16.     In the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get the order of Learned District Forum executed, as per the law if it is not complied within six weeks of this order.  In that event she can also bring on record the bills issued and the payments made, so that learned executing court can pass appropriate orders.

          With these observations, findings and directions, this appeal is dismissed.

This matter was heard by the bench consisting of the President and the Member Mr. Ajit Kumar.  After the order was dictated with his consent, Mr. Ajit Kumar had to rush to Bombay for treatment of cancer.  He informed that he may not be available for about a month.  Therefore this order is being pronounced and signed by the President,  Keeping in view the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 25.02.2013, passed in W.P. (C) No.30939 of 2010 (N) - P.K. Jose - vs - M. Aby & Ors.

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

                        Ranchi,

                        Dated:-20-04-2015