BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATNA Vs. BALDEO SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. (Bihar State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as Board) is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 29.5.2003 passed by District Forum, Patna in Complaint Case 229/99 whereby and whereunder the following direction has been given to the appellant: (i) To rectify the electric mistake of the disputed bill within a month; (ii) The complainant on receiving the rectified bill shall make payment within a month; (iii) O. P. on receipt of payment of the dues as per rectified bill shall give connection with a meter to the complainant within a month.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that complainant is a consumer of the Board and he was given a commercial connection by the Board and bill for the month of July-August, 1987 with meter reading as 764 unit were charged amounting to Rs.833.42. The total amount in the bill is shown as 1833-42. Thus, the bill is inflated by Rs.1,000/- (Annexure-1 ). It is further allegation that electric bill for September to December, 1988, August-September, 1989 and of the subsequent months as per Annexure-2 to Annexure-7, the bills were sent to the complainant but they all had electric mistake and they were inflated. The bill for the month of February, 1995 (Annexure-7) shows present reading as 2623 and past reading 2627 with total charge of Rs.26,860.02 which on its face is incorrect. It is further alleged that Assistant Electrical Engineer of the Board came to the house of the complainant and took away the meter for which a receipt was granted to him. The final reading shown in the meter at the time of removal was 2625 dated 26.8.1995 (Annexure-8 ). The complainant's contention is that he was ready to pay the electric bill but the O. P. failed to send correct bill in spite of repeated reminders, then the complaint was filed.

(3.) The O. P.-Board appeared and filed reply. The main contention of the Board is that complainant's connection was commercial connection since long; therefore, tariff has to be charged as per commercial connection. The bill for the month of July-August was on average basis and not as per meter reading as the meter was defective since April, 1985. The reading on average was 90 units per month. Similarly, a subsequent bill of September, 1987 was also on average basis. The rate of average was enhanced from 90 units on the basis of 30% load factor as per the then tariff with effect from April, 1985. The bill was for 1320 K. Watts. The other subsequent bills were also on the average basis and they were charged as tariff applicable on the date of bill. The complainant has failed to pay any of the bills, hence his line was disconnected on 5.2.1994 and meter was removed on 20.8.1995. It is also the case of the O. P. that complainant was found stealing energy by means of Toka on 18.2.1999 when an inspection team visited his house and F. I. R. was lodged vide Case No.194/99 with the local P. S. The bill as per latest tariff has been raised and sent to the complainant. Thus, the contention of the complainant is not justified and the bills are not arbitrary or inflated.