Decided on September 03,2004

Electrical Executive Engineer And Anr Appellant
Ashwani Kumar Sah Respondents


- (1.) APPELLANT (Electrical Executive Engineer, Muzaffarpur) is the O.P. who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 3.2.1995 passed in Complaint Case No. 539/1993 by District Forum, Muzaffarpur through which the appellant have been directed to adjust the electric consumption charges realized by the appellant on the basis of average calculation beyond six months in the arrear bills of the respondent and the same should be mentioned in the bill and the same should be served in the future bill. The appellant has been further directed not to charge meter rent and D.P.S. The consumption bill for the month of January and February has also been quashed by the District Forum and a compensation of Rs. 7,000/ - has been allowed against the appellant.
(2.) THIS appeal has been heard ex parte, as the respondent did not appear in spite of the registered notice.
(3.) THE brief fact of the case is that complainant's electric meter had burnt on 23.6.1990 of which he sent information to the officials of the Electric Supply Division. The complainant was received electric bills since 23.6.1990 till 31.12.1992 at the rate of 100 unit per months on average basis which was regularly paid by the complainant. The Electric Supply Company also issued direction that bills on the average basis must not be sent after six months and the defective, burnt meter should be replaced by the Board at the earliest, and the further bills should be sent on the actual meter reading. Even after this direction the meter was not replaced and Electricity Board was sending him bills on the basis of 100 units per month which was being regularly paid by the complainant. The contention of the complainant is that this was negligence on the part of the Board and complainant is entitled to refund back the amount, which he has paid on the basis of average of 100 units per month. The complainant's further case is that subsequent bill of the month of January and February for Rs. 2,338/ - was illegal and it should be set aside. These bills were much inflated in comparison of the bill of December, 1992. There was no basis for the Board to send the bills of these two months for such inflated amount. The new meter has been installed in the premises of the complainant on 21.5.1993. For the first six months after the installation of the meter, the bills were sent on the average of 98 unit per month because on this meter there was extra load of six other meters but thereafter when the load was removed this meter became exclusive for the premises of the complainant. The complainant has protested that the meter has been installed at his cost; therefore, the Board should not be charged meter rent nor the D.P.S. The Board appeared but did not file written statement and, at last, the complaint was heard ex parte and the impugned order was passed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.