CHAIRMAN GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. GAUTAMBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from order dated 6.8.1998 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Complaint No.917 of 1994. Impugned order reads as under : "the opponent - Gujarat Electricity Board is directed to refund the amount of supplementary bill and reconnection charges paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% p. a. from the date of payment by the complainant till the opponent pay the said amount. The opponent is further directed to pay the sum of R.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost. "

(2.) Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant Gujarat Electricity Board and the opponent (complainant) who is present in person. On going through the impugned order it would clearly appear that it was the grievance of the opponent GEB that the meter in question was moving slow. If that was so, it was the duty of the opponent GEB to refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector. Instead, the complainant was saddled with impugned supplementary bill resulting into even disconnection of the electricity supply and requiring him to pay the supplementary bill along with reconnection charges. This resulted into great hardship to the complainant. That is how he had to present himself before the learned Forum. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case at length, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that there was serious deficiency in service on the part of the GEB. The learned Forum has also considered the lapse on the part of the opponent GEB in not supplying the required information with regard to the number of units that might have been consumed by the complainant if the meter was working properly. The learned Forum has also observed that even if the meter was moving slow, the calculation of units would not have given out consumption of more than 900 units. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid order was passed by the learned Forum.

(3.) In our considered opinion, both on facts and in law, the opponent GEB was guilty of deficiency in service as per provision contained in Sec.26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. According to Sec.26 of the Indian Electricity Act, it was the duty of the appellant GEB to refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector since the meter was found by it to be running slow and not by the consumer. This Commission had an occasion to consider the provision contained in Sec.26 of the Act in respect of slowness of the meter in the case of Deputy Engineer, GEB, Himatnagar Town, Sabarkantha V/s. Rameshbhai Keshavlal Barot, Himatnagar, Appeal No.48/a/1998 decided on 6.7.2001. It was held that if GEB has found the meter to be moving slow, it is for the GEB to refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector. In this case, admittedly, the GEB has failed to act accordingly. Hence, the main part of the impugned order has to be maintained.