NEELKAMAL INDUSTRIES Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the decision of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The facts in brief are that the petitioner has a small scale industry having an electric connection for running a 70 horse power machine. The premises of the petitioner has a small scale industry having an electric connection for running a 70 horse power machine. The premises of the petitioner were visited by the respondent's officers who found that the meter was faulty and that one phase was not giving reading on the meter. A copy of the inspection report was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, bills for Rs. 11,082/- and Rs. 6,628/- were sent to the petitioner herein for payment. Feeling aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a complaint. The plea of the respondent was that since one phase was not recording any reading on the meter the additional charges were calcutted in respect of the said phase on the basis of the bill for two phases already charged in the regular bill and on a request from the petitioner only, the respondent agreed to take the average for three months prior to December, 1993 which worked out to Rs. 11,501/-. Out of this, the respondents deducted Rs. 4,873/- already paid by the appellant (petitioner herein) and a bill for the balance of Rs. 6,628/- was sent to the petitioner. The plea of the respondent is that they have not overcharged or charged anything extra. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum with costs and so was the appeal. The petitioner before us has raised a plea that if the meter is found faulty, the respondent could not raise a supplementary bill without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector which had admittedly not been done in the present case. He has placed reliance upon the case of M.P.E.B. & Ors. v. Smt. Basantibai reported as AIR 1988 SC 71 and S.N. Sunderson (Minerals) Ltd. (M/s.) v. Junior Engineer, M.P.E.B., M.P. No. 1878 of 1990 (J), decided on 1.4.1997, which also reiterate this fact. In the light of this clear position, the revision petition is accepted and the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission are set aside. The respondent is directed to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910. The supplemetary bill could be raised by them only after obtaining report from the Electrical Inspector, if that happens to be adverse to the petitioner. Meanwhile, if the amount has already been recovered, credit shall be given to the respondent for that amount and it will be adjusted in the future bills. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. Revision Petition allowed.