JAYANTIBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the original complainant who had filed a complaint before the District Forum to declare the electricity bill of 19.8.87 to be illegal and void. Under the said bill the G. E. B. assessed the consumption of electricity of last six months under A. B. C. D. formula on the allegation that the seal was tampered with and there was theft of electricity. It appears to us that the meter was burnt and the complainant immediately informed the officers of the Board at the local place that the meter has been burnt and the same may be changed. There is no dispute that prior to that day the meter was not working or the readings were not taken.

(2.) That according to Mr. Deve, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, the Board had followed all the procedure viz. , they detatched the meter, sealed the same and sent it to the laboratory for testing. However, the complainant has submitted that there to no finding of the laboratory that the wires were changed i. e. , from negative to positive and positive to negative. At the most the report is that the seal appears to have been tampered with.

(3.) Mr. Trada, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-complainant states that even if the meter was put in the cloth bag, the seal can be destroyed or tampered with by the officers of the Board also. It is very difficult to accept this argument However considering the facts and circumstances that the complainant was in possession of only 5 bighas of land and his previous bills were also not exceeding Rs.500/- to 600/- the assessment of the Board appears to us on the higher side. We therefore suggested the Board considering the fact that: (a) the complainant was holding only 5 bighas of land; (b) now the charges are based upon the capacity of the motor installed by the complainant, there is no possibility of any theft; the Board may reduce the assessment to Rs.14,500/-. We are happy to say that the suggestion has been accepted by the Board. The complainant has already paid Rs.4,500/- which shall have to be deducted from the aforesaid amount and, there- fore, the complainant-appellant will have to pay Rs.10,000/- only. The learned advocate for the appellant has also agreed that the amount is reasonable and his client will pay the same as ordered by the Commission.