SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. HOTEL MARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were the opposite parties before the District Forum on complaint filed by the respondent-complainant. Complaint was regarding excessive electricity bill. Complainant reported petitioners about the defective meter on 24.9.1996 but no action was taken. It was only on his repeated demands that in the first week of May, 1996 new electric meter was installed. Then the complainant was issued an additional bill dated 5.6.1996 payable on 11.7.1996 for Rs. 49,761.60. This bill was received by the complainant on 13.6.1996. He was told that if he pays the bill before 11.7.1996, there would not be any surcharge. The bill was for the period of 26 months allegedly for consumed excess power by the complainant. It was complained before the District Forum that the bill was not only arbitrary but excessive and the arrears could not be claimed for such a long period. On being notice, petitioner-opposite party submitted that during inspection of the premises of the complainant on 7.5.1996 it was found that there was certain irregularities in the installation of the complainant and at that time the Manager of the complainant admitted that there was no defect in the metre. It was also submitted that if there was a dispute regarding correctness of the meter reading, it had to be decided under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. As no such dispute was raised, complaint was not maintainable. District Forum found that there was no evidence to show that the complainant had made any complaint about the non-functioning of the meter. But then also there is nothing on the record to show that complainant had made any theft of electricity. District Forum also took note of the fact that no criminal prosecution had been lodged, though we do not think it is invariably necessary for the Electricity Board to prosecute a consumer if there is theft of electricity. On the basis of material before it, District Forum found that the impugned bill was rather excessive and directed the petitioner to make afresh calculation on taking six months average reading of the new meter from the date of its installation and then accordingly to calculate the previous charges.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order, petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission. State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum but was of the view that proper direction to be made was to take the average of energy of the three months succeeding the change of meter and then to determine the consumption of energy for the six months prior to issue of the bill. With this modification the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Still aggrieved, petitioner has come before us. Having considered the circumstances of the case, we do not think it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.