GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. GOVINDRAM MODIRAM BHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from order dated 27.4.2004 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchmahals in Complaint Application No. 257 of 2003 directing the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board to refer the meter in question to the Electrical Inspector, Nadiad and issue bill for electricity consumption for the disputed period as per the report of the Electrical Inspector and adjust the deposited amount in future bills and to give credit for the balance amount of the deposit in favour of the complainant. The learned Forum set aside the disputed bill.

(2.) WHEN this appeal came up for admission, the original opponent GEB was directed to refer the electric meter to the Electrical Inspector and produce the report of the Electrical Inspector before this Commission on the date of hearing of this appeal. It was on that condition that interim stay of the execution of the impugned order was granted. We are at pains to observe that instead of sending the electric meter to the Electrical Inspector the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB for short) addressed a letter to the Electrical Inspector stating that the disputed bill was issued to the complainant in view of the fact that it was a theft case. The result is that the Electrical Inspector reported by communication dated 24.9.2004 addressed to the Dy. Engineer of the City Sub -Division Office of opponent GEB stating therein that since as per the letter written from the side of the opponent GEB it was a case of theft of electricity no action was required to be taken by the Electrical Inspector and if any further direction or clarification was necessary, the head office of the Electrical Inspector located at Gandhinagar might be contacted. Thus, there is clear non -compliance of the order passed by this Commission and the same cannot be lightly viewed. Yet, we had the occasion to hear the learned Advocate appearing for the opponent GEB, now appellant before us. We have also heard the learned Advocate for the complainant.

(3.) IT was the complainant s case before the learned Forum that he was earning his livelihood from running of Srinath Hotel where he had a single phase meter. He also had another meter with 3 phase connection. According to his case, the meter box was fixed by inserting nails inside the wall of the hotel in question and the officers of the opponent GEB used to check the meter time and often. They had the occasion to check the meter on 28.3.2001 and it was found that the meter box and the meter were in order. Yet, the meter bearing No. 1137814 was seized for the purpose of laboratory examination. According to complainant s case, bi -monthly electricity used was to the extent of 200 -225 units. However, as according to the opponent GEB the figures in the meters were not moving, average bills were given for the billing period September -October, 2002, November -December, 2002, January -February 2003 and March -April, 2003 and the complainant had paid the said bills. The meter reader was informed accordingly. Yet, the officers of the opponent GEB approached the shop in question on 11.6.2003 and both the meters were checked. The meter box in question was alleged to have been found tilting resulting into slow movement of the meter. Theft of electricity was alleged against the complainant without drawing any Panchnama and without keeping any witness present. Opponent GEB accordingly issued the disputed bill for Rs. 1,16,148.99 and cut off the electricity connection in question. This resulted into the complainant s business getting paralysed. He had no other alternative except to pay 20% of the bill i.e. Rs. 23,250. However, as the complainant did not have faith in the proceedings before the Appellate Committee, he approached the learned Forum challenging the disputed bill. The complainant s case was one of prejudice shown from the side of the officers of the opponent GEB time and often in respect of the checking of the meters carried out quite frequently.