BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SRIPATI JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been heard ex parte, as the respondent did not appear in spite of the notice. O. P. (Bihar State Electricity Board) has preferred the appeal against the order dated 10.11.2003 passed by the District Forum, Motihari in Complaint Case No.183/2001 whereby and whereunder directed the appellant to prepare the bill of complainant on the basis of meter reading and to give this bill within a period of one month and to pay Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation including legal expenses.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that complainant alleged that he was consumer of the Board bearing No.4121/9/132. He received a bill of Rs.4480.40 in the month of March, 99 showing consumption of 150 units. He was served another bill of Rs.5378.90 for the month of April, May and June, 99 with consumption of 450 units. Thereafter, he did not receive bill from July, 99 to October, 2000. He received another bill in the month of November, 2000 for Rs.11,425.90 for the period July, 99 to 2000 with a consumption of 1200 units and again he received bill in the month of March, 2001 for Rs.13349.90 showing consumption of 300 units. The contention of the complainant is that these bills are defective and were not as per meter reading. The Electricity Board has never issued monthly and regular bill to the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed the case before the District Forum. The complainant's contention was that this bill may be set aside and the Board may be directed to send fresh bill on the basis of meter reading without any tariff charge.

(3.) The Electricity Board appeared and submitted that it is admitted fact that complainant has not paid electric energy charge since March, 99 and still consuming the electric energy. The Board has not take any coercive steps and has not disconnected the line of the complainant. The complainant has filed the case in order to defraud the Board of the above amount, which is lying due against the complainant. The complainant's meter became defective for which he was informed. As such, as per rule and as per load factor on the basis of 150 units per month he was charged as per tariff rule but the complainant did not pay this amount. Therefore, order of the District Forum that Board should issue fresh bills on the basis of meter reading is wrong on the facts of the case because the complainant's meter was defective since long and he was supplied bill as per tariff rules of 150 units per month. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board nor it is in a position to issue fresh bill unless the meter is replaced for which the complainant has been asked to purchase another meter and get it tested but he has not taken any interest rather he has filed this case with false allegation and in order to make delay in payment. The Board is suffering huge loss at the hands of the complainant.