SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER OPERATION HSEB Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haryana State Electricity Board (now HVPN) has come up in appeal against the order dated 19tli October, 1996 passed by learned District Forum, Kaithal, whereby complaint of consumer Om Parkash alleging deficiency in service against the HSEB in the matter of issuing correct electricity bills, has been allowed. According to the complainant Om Parkash electricity connection vide Account No. AP-8-370 was install ed in his premises in the name of his father Babu Ram. After the death of Babu Ram on 1st February, 1994 he claimed to be consumer and started depositing the bills regularly. Despite that, on 16th February, 1994 he was asked by the H. S. E. B. to pay an additional sum of Rs.6,000/- which was paid by him even though it was not actually payable. The present complaint was filed for the refund of the aforesaid amount. In reply, the HSEB admitted the factual position but contested the claim for the refund of the amount of Rs.6,000/- on the ground that for the last many years H. S. E. B. had been charging the electricity bills on flat rates and by revising the same, the amount of Rs.6,000/- was found payable. This, according to the HSEB, amounted to stealing of energy.

(2.) The learned District Forum after examining the matter in detail and appreciating the evidence produced by the parties allowed the complaint by passing the following direction: "we have given our considerable thoughts to the rival contentions. There is no such pleadings of the respondents if the complainant was found stealing energy directly by another connection in addition to her regular connection and, therefore, imposition of penalty of Rs.3,750/- on this count is illegal and untenable. The complaint is partly accepted in the manner that penalty of Rs.3,750/- imposed upon the complainant is waived. "

(3.) In the appeal before us, learned Counsel for the H. S. E. B. has reiterated the stand taken by the appellant to contend that even if the charge of stealing the energy could not be substantiated, yet H. S. E. B. was competent to revise the tariff as the complainant had been paying earlier on flat rate. We do not agree with the learned Counsel as without affording proper opportunity to the consumer and in the absence of any statutory powers for revising the amount of the bill already charged by the H. S. E. B. , the impugned action was wholly untenable in law. In these circumstances, we do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by the learned District Forum; hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.