DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD & ANOTHER Vs. PERMANENT LOK ADALAT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited - petitioners are before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 18.11.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by Permanent Lok Adalat in the proceedings initiated under Sec. 22 of Legal Services Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "1987 Act") on the premise that electric connection bearing No. N.KMID-0546 was installed in a house which was purchased by respondent No.2 measuring 4 marlas situated in D.C.Colony, Faridabad.

(2.) Mr. R.S. Longia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 filed a petition under Sec. 22-C of 1987 Act on the ground that the petitioners had issued bills on the average basis for the months of April 2014 to Nov. 2014 and in the month of Nov. 2014, moved an application for changing/replacement of the meter. In the month of March 2015, the petitioners changed the electric meter and thereafter, started issuing bills on consumption basis but on 8.6.2015 issued a bill of Rs. 76,267 including the amount of Rs. 74,104/- as arrears on the premise that at that time the reading of old meter was 17913 and the new meter was installed at 0 reading. After installation of the new meter, the consumer consumed 143 units and on the basis of the consumption, the account of the consumer was overhauled by taking the last reading 17913. Accordingly, the demand was raised.

(3.) He further submits that the aforementioned connection was in the name of Kali Ram resident of D.C.Colony, Fatehabad. However, the same was replaced vide MCO No.93/599 dated 18.02.2015. The finding of the Lok Adalat is erroneous and illegal, much less capricious on the premise that it was on request of the consumer, the meter was replaced. On replacement, he had consumed the units aforementioned. On the basis of aforementioned calculation, the demand was raised. The demand is perfectly legal and justified as per the consumption of units on replacement. The aforementioned dispute involved intricate question of facts and law which could have been only adjudicated in civil Court and not by the Lok Adalat, therefore, it did not have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the application. He further submits that the meter reading reported 0 reading from April 2014 to Nov. 2014 and the average bills had been issued. When the consumer objected to the same, meter was replaced on 18.02.2015. The bills were accordingly issued, therefore, the Lok Adalat was totally wrong in allowing the complaint. There was no material on record to show that the meter was reported O.K during April 2014 to March 2015 allegedly noticed by the Lok Adalat. The consumer had made a request for checking of the meter replacing the same. When the meter reader reported 0 reading, it was replaced. The meter was actually got checked from M & T Lab and found dead stopped on its counter display vide lab report dated 102015 (Annexure P-5). Since the petitioners were required to controvert the case but the report of the Lab indicated the slow running of the meter. It is on that basis, much less consumption of units as per the new bill, therefore, there was no fault of overhauled.