STATION MANAGER INDIAN AIRLINES ANDORS Vs. JITESWAR AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts averred in the complaint are that Smt. Shanti Devi (complainant in short) has been residing in her house at Swatantra Nagar, Narela and has electric connection No. 1222728 DL of 25 KW. On 21.11.91 there was sparking as a result of which the meter got burnt. The person on duty was orally informed and he promised to take further action in the matter. However, the meter was not replaced. The complainant sent a request in writing for replacement of the meter on 4.12.91. The complaint was acknowledged by the opposite party but no action was taken. The complainant got served legal notice on 13.1.92. Without taking any further action for replacement of the meter, the burnt meter was taken away by officials of the opposite party in February, 92 and a bill dated 19.2.92 for Rs. 1,20,520.45 was served on the complainant for the period 26.11.88 to 26.11.91 to be paid upto 27.1.92. The present complaint was instituted on 30.3.92 and the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to instal the meter without insisting for the payment of the bill for Rs. 1,20,000/ - odd. According to the complainant the said bill is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and un -warranted. She has also prayed for cost of proceedings against the opposite party.

(2.) IN the written version filed by DESU (opposite party for short) it has been stated that a joint team comprising officials of three wings namely vigilance, meter testing and zonal staff, carried out an inspection of the premises of the complainant on 26.11.91 and found that electricity was being used directly from the main supply line by taking out the meter which was lying on the ground. It was also found that instead of the sanctioned load the connected load was 5.09 KW. The joint team also found that in addition to the premises of the complainant the supply was being used for industrial power as well as commercial light and power by M/s. Ushal Electricals and M/s. Chandigarh Hospital. The joint team prepared an inspection report and got registered a case for theft with Police Station Narela. On the basis of the joint team and in accordance with the relevant tariff instructions for the relevant period the aforesaid bill for Rs. 1,20,000/ - odd was prepared and served on the complainant. According to the opposite party, the bill was perfectly in order and supply could not be restored unless the bill was paid.

(3.) IN support of her case, the complainant filed her own affidavit and also placed reliance on the reply filed by one Kanhiya Lai, Meter Reader in departmental proceed ingsagainst him under Rule 7 of DESU (DMC) Service (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 dated 9.11.92. On behalf of the opposite party an affidavit of Mr. R.N.P. Sharma, Asstt. Accountant, Distt. Narela who had obtained approval of the Competent Authority and had prepared the disputed bill in accordance with the tariff in force was filed. He has stated the basis on which now the bill has been raised. The opposite party has also filed the affidavit of Mr. O.P. Charya, Supdt. (T) in the Distt./Zone Office, Narela. He was one of the members of the joint team which carried out the inspection on 26.11.91. He also produced a copy of the joint inspection report which was prepared after the inspection.