BHANU PRASAD SAH Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER /complainant was provided electric connection No. BR -44/99 LTIS of 10 HP for running Chura mill at Bhagalpur by the respondent/opposite party Electricity Board sometime in 1976. He applied for increase of load of 10 HP by filing application sometime in 1983 and was allowed this extra load. On receiving electricity bill of Rs. 2,21,806.49 in March, 1996, petitioner challenged it on the ground that he was charged at fixed rate of 1340 unit per month instead of actual consumption and charging on 20 HP load was unlawful. On non -correction by the respondent of the electricity bill, petitioner filed complaint seeking direction to the Electricity Board to correct the bill from the beginning, charge for HP 10 load, pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 towards mental agony. Complaint was contested by filing written version on a variety of grounds. One of the grounds taken was that a sum of Rs. 3,06,862.10 was due towards electricity charges which the petitioner has failed to pay. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that outstanding amount of lakhs was due from the petitioner which he has failed to pay to the respondent Board. Dissatisfied with District Forums Order the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission by the Order dated 27.3.2006 mainly on ground of complaint not being maintainable, the petitioner not being a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and petitioner having not paid the arrears of bills upto the period the connection was disconnected in July, 1998. It is this Order which is being challenged in this revision.

(2.) PURSUANT to the Order dated 8.8.1996, petitioner has filed the electricity bill along with additional affidavit dated 24.8.2006. This bill would show that amount of Rs. 5,36,736.03 was due from the petitioner as on 31.5.2006. Though four weeks time was given to the petitioner to deposit tentative amount of Rs. 2,50,000 with the respondent Board but on 4.10.2006 Mrs. Prerna Mehta, Advocate has made statement that petitioner is unwilling to deposit this amount. Having heard Mrs. Prerna Mehta, having considered the Orders passed by Fora below as also the fact that petitioner is in arrears of electricity dues of more than 5 lakh by now, we are not inclined to interfere with the Order passed by State Commission in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed. R.P. dismissed.