CHAMAN SINGH Vs. PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT DISTRIBUTION NIGAM LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/petitioner took a Katiya connection from the opposite party for domestic use on 21.06.1998. As per the scheme under which Katiya connection was granted, the user was to pay for 120 units of electricity per kilowatt of the load. Since the load sanctioned to the complainant/petitioner was 2 kilowatt, he had to pay for 240 units of electricity every month, irrespective of the quantum of electricity actually consumed by him.

(2.) In June, 1998, the Government converted a number of Katiya connections into regular connections. However, since electricity meters were not available with the U.P. State Electricity Corporation, the consumers were authorized to purchase and get installed single phase meter, from specific companies, after getting the same checked by the opposite party. The complainant, however, did not purchase any meter. Later on, a bill was issued to the complainant under the scheme of Katiya connection by charging for 240 units per month. A sum of Rs. 1,000/-, which the complainant paid to the opposite party was not adjusted in the said bill. The complainant approached the concerned District Forum, by way of a complaint, challenging the bill issued by the opposite party. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party/respondent on the ground that the complainant himself was to be blamed for not converting the Katiya connection into a regular connection by purchasing and installing an electricity meter. The District Forum, vide its order dated 19.11.2005, directed the opposite party to cancel the bill issued to the complainant and issue a fresh bill charging @ 120 units per kilowatt per month for the period from 21.06.1998 to 24.10.2003 alongwith other charges and on the basis of actual consumption w.e.f. 24.10.2003. The opposite party was also directed to adjust the amount of Rs. 1,000/-, which the complainant had already deposited with it. A sum of Rs. 500/- was also awarded as cost of litigation to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the State Commission also disallowed the cost of litigation, which the District Forum had awarded to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that since the Katiya connection was regularised w.e.f. 21.06.1998, the opposite party is not entitled to recover electricity charges @ 120 units per kilowatt per month. We, however, find no merit in this contention. Though the Government had decided to regularise the Katiya connection, the said regularisation could have been implemented only on instalment of an electricity meter since thereafter the consumer would have been liable to pay for the electricity actually consumed by him and as reflected in the electricity meter. The opposite party did not install electricity meter at the premises of the complainant since they did not have sufficient meters available with them at that time. The complainant had an option to purchase a meter from the approved vendor and install it after getting it checked from the officials of the opposite party. The complainant, however, did not avail that opportunity since he did not purchase an electricity meter from the market. Therefore, the opposite party was fully justified in charging @ 120 units per kilowatt per month till the time an electricity meter was actually installed in the premises of the complainant. We fail to appreciate how the complainant could even contend that the opposite party should not charge @ 120 units per kilowatt per month for the period from 21.06.1998 to 24.10.2003, when no electricity meter was installed at his premises during the aforesaid period. In the absence of installation of a meter, the opposite party had no option but to recover electricity charges, as per the rules of Katiya connection, which envisaged payment of 120 units per kilowatt per month. In the absence of a meter, the respondent had no means to quantify the electricity actually consumed by the petitioner/complainant. Payment as per the Scheme of Katiya connections therefore became the only method, to recover the energy charges from the petitioner.