R KAPUR Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the defendant to grant rebate in the billing of the electricity consumed by the petitioner and for refund of Rs.508.57. which was paid as cost of the meter. The facts are simple. The petitioner is residing in house No.70. Paschimi Marg. Vasant Vihar. Two electricity meters were installed for supplying electricity to this house. Electricity meter K.No. RK584507 was supplying electricity to the ground floor and electricity meter K. No. RK584061 was supplying electricity to the first floor of the house. In August. 1989 the first meter was damaged. On a complaint being made the staff of the respondent. DESU now known as DVB. connected the line of the damaged electricity meter to the second meter. As a result, the electricity consumed on the mound floor was being billed as per meter reading of the second meter. As demanded by the DESU. a sum of Rs.508.57 was paid as cost of the new meter but the meter was not replaced for over 6 years. It was provided on 25.1.1996. In the meantime all the bills of the electricity were duly paid as per the reading of the second meter (which was supplying electricity to the first floor). Yet the respondent continued to bill the petitioner in respect of the second electricity meter also on load basis. It continued to issue such bills inspite of protest and representation made by the petitioner. At last an application was moved before Bijli Adalat for refund of Rs.508.57 and withdrawal of the demand in respect of the damaged meter. On 5.9.1997 Bijli Adalat directed the withdrawal of entire demand raised in respect of the damaged meter. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the damaged meter was not replaced from September. 198 9/01/1996, the electricity consumed in the ground floor was charged as per meter reading of only one meter. It was stated that the pattern of consumption of the electricity on the mound floor and the first floor showed that the consumption had always ranged between 500 units and 1000-1500 units in each floor. The billing for the electricity used in the around floor was chargeable at a lower rate for the first 300 units as per tariff rate but no such lower tariff rate was allowed and the billing was done at the maximum rate of Rs.3 per unit for the total consumption of the damaged meter as per the reading of the second meter. The petitioner approached Bijli Adalat again in November, 1997 which declined to interfere. It rather observed that as per tariff, the electricity supplied to one premises cannot be used in another premises and if it was done. the mis-use charges were leviable which, in the facts and circumstances of the case. were not levied. Thereafter. the petitioner approached the Chairman of the Respondent. The petitioner was advised that he had option to raise the grievance before the conciliatory court. Accordingly. on 15.7.1998 he filed an application before the conciliatory court, which was replaced by the permanent Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat on 04.2.2000 rejected the application observing) that there was no possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. According to the petitioner, the responsibility of maintaing the meter was on the respondent. Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act and Rule 57 framed thereunder enjoined upon the respondent to make regular checks on the electricity meter. There was no Justification for the respondent for not changing the damaged meter for over 6 years in spite of the full knowledge and repeated requests. There was no question of any mis-use of the electricity by the petitioner since the electricity lines of the defective meter were connected to the second meter by the staff of the respondent which came to attend the complaint. The petitioner could not be punished for negligence and inaction of its staff in not replacing the damaged electricity meter for a long time causing substantial financial loss to the petitioner as he was deprived of the lower tariff rate for the first 300 units of the electricity consumed on the ground floor. Hence, the petition.

(2.) noticing. Mr.S.K. Chaudhary. Executive Engineer of the respondent DVB filed a counter affidavit in which he repudiated the claim of the petitioner. He deposed that the meter in question was got damaged and its load was transferred to the other meter that was alive by the petitioner himself without the knowledge of the respondent. The bills on the damaged meter were wrongly raised, so they were later on withdrawn in September. 1997 in compliance of the decision of the Bijli Adalat. The concessional slab system is applicable only when separate meters exist and alive and record regular consumption of electricity as per tariff provision. The Bijli Adalat or permanent Lok Adalat have rightly turned down the claim of the petitioner for concessional slab of tariff. The mils-use of the live meter where electricity was being used in both the floors has not been levied as per the decision of the Bijli Adalat. The total concessional slab rate on one meter is Impermissible. The total consumption of the electricity was properly recorded In the meter and the concessional slap rate was not clearly available to the consumer. Refund of the cost of the meter could also not be allowed as the meter has been Installed. It was contended that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the petitioner reiterated his own allegations and denied those of the respondent. I have heard the petitioner In person and counsel for respondent DVB at Ie oath. The grievance of the petitioner is that the electricity meter installed in the around floor was damaged in August, 1989. The staff of the respondent. who attended to the complaint, without his consent had connected the wires of the damaged meter to the second live meter on the assurance that the damaged meter would be replaced soon. Despite his writing several letters and complaints, the damaged meter was not replaced. which was the duty of the respondent to do so within seven days. The damaged meter was ultimately replaced only in January. 1996. Consequently, he submitted, the electricity consumed at the around floor continued to be billed as per the meter reading of the second live meter which used to supply electricity to the first floor. He arsued that as per tariff, he was entitled to concessional rate for the first 300 units consumed on the around floor which he was deprived of when he was forced to make the payment of the electricity consumed on the ground floor at the higher tariff rate of Rs.3 per unit. It was submitted that the pattern of consumption of the electricity on the ground floor and the first floor had shown that the electricity consumption on each floor ranged between 500 units to 1000-1500 units. As such. the respondent should have billed the petitioner for the electricity consumed at the ground floor at concessional rate tariff for the first 300 units in addition to a similar rate charged for electricity used in the first floor. In other words, he submitted that the respondent has over-charged the petitioner by billing the -entire consumption of the two meters at the maximum rate of Rs.3 per unit. He urged that the respondent should refund the amount which had been charged in excess before the first meter was replaced. He further submitted that the electricity meter was to be provided by the DVB for which it was also to charge hire rent but he was made to pay Rs.508.57 for replacement of damaged meter, therefore, this amount was also illegally recovered from him and should be refunded.