SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER HSEB Vs. R K KATARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haryana State Electricity Board has come up in appeal against the order dated 14th May, 1996 passed by learned District Forum, Gurgaon, whereby complaint of a consumer - R. K. Kataria has been allowed. According to the complainant, he was having domestic connection of electricity No. M/670 for which he was paying the bills regularly. However, in January, 1995 his electricity meter got burnt for which he approached the Electricity Department for the change of meter. Though a sum of Rs.500/- was deposited for the replacement of the new meter on 11th January, 1995, yet the meter was not replaced till 26th March, 1996. This resulted in the lot of inconvenience to the complainant, but despite that the H. S. E. B. demanded the tariff at a flat rate. Aggrieved against that, he approached the District Forum for quashing of the demand. In their reply, the H. S. E. B. pleaded that no doubt the complainant had deposited Rs.500/- as costs of the replacement of the meter, but as there was no meter available in the stores, the same could not be installed. It was further pleaded that the complainant was advised to purchase his own meter but he did not agree and it was in March, 1996 when the meter was available in the stores, the same was installed. The District Forum after considering the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that burning of the earlier meter stood proved as also the deposit of Rs.500/- on 11th January, 1995 for the replacement of the meter. Therefore, the H. S. E. B. was not entitled in law to raise any demand for any consumption from January, 1995 to March, 1996; hence the complaint was allowed.

(2.) In the appeal before us, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the H. S. E. B. has vehemently pleaded that even if the electricity meter was not available and was installed late, it was the duty of the complainant to purchase his own meter and instal the same. The learned Counsel further contends that despite that H. S. E. B. had only raised the demand of charges only on average basis. After hearing the arguments we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the H. S. E. B. It is a simple logic that when the Electricity Board has not installed the meter despite deposit of the replacement charges of Rs.500/- due to its non availability, the demand made by the H. S. E. B. was wholly illegal. A consumer is liable to pay only for the electricity consumed by him and not for the energy he would have consumed had there been a meter installed, nor he can be penalised for not purchasing the meter at his own expense for installing in his premises. Under the circumstances, there is no cogent ground to differ with the view taken by the learned District Forum. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.