KRISHNA MURARI Vs NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.
Result Published
Acts Referenced
Judgement Snapshot
Case Number
2726 of 2015
Hon'ble Bench
Ajit Bharihoke, S.M. KANTIKAR
Advocates
Sanjeev Kumar Verma
Final Decision
Petitions Disposed
Acts Referred
- Electricity Act, 2003, Section 126, Section 127 - Assessment - Appeal to appellate authority
Judgement Text
Translate:
1. By this order we propose to decide the above noted revision petitions arising out of the impugned order dated 03-08-2015 of the State Commission, Bihar in First Appeal No.58 of 2015.
2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petitions are that Mr. Kirshna Murari filed a consumer complaint in District Forum, Saran at Chapra alleging that he is a consumer of the opposite party having 1 KW electricity connection No.17372. In May, 2007 the electricity meter pertaining to the said connection developed defect. A formal complaint in writing was made to the electrical engineer on 28-05-2007. However, the opposite party failed to take any action to replace the meter. The meter, however, was replaced on 26-04-2014. It is the case of the complainant although the electricity meter was defective in September, 2013 an erroneous electricity bill indicating consumption of 7831 units upto August, 2013 was issued in the month of September, 2013. The complainant protested against the aforesaid bill and requested for correction but in vain. Claiming this to be deficiency consumer complaint was filed by the complainant seeking direction to the opposite party to rectify the electricity bill issued for the month of September, 2013 as per rules besides the complainant claimed monetary compensation to the tune of Rs.3,54,575/-. The complainant also prayed for scrapping of the belated payment in respect of defective bill and also the stay against the disconnection of electricity connection.
2. The opposite party contested the claim by filing written statement. The stand taken by the opposite party is that on 18-12-2013 an inspection of electricity connection of the complainant was done by the Assistant Electrical Engineer and it was found that as against the sanctioned electricity connection for 1 Kw the complainant was using the load of 4 Kw. The allegation pertaining to the defect in meter was denied and it was pleaded that bill in question was rightly raised. It was also pleaded that meter of the complainant was replaced on 26-04-2014 and that the electricity connection was disconnected on 26-08-2014 and at that time the meter reading was 993 KWH.
3. The District Forum vide its order dated 27-02-2015 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to re-issue the electricity bill to the complainant on the basis of 40 units consumption per month from April 2013 to August 2013 without asking for any surcharge for delayed payment and also to pay to the complainant compensation/litigation cost to the tune of Rs.6,000/-.
4. The opposite party did not file any appeal against the order of the State Commission. The complainant being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission preferred an appeal against the order of the District Forum and the State Commission vide impugned order dated 03-08-2015 and modified the order of the District Forum and directed the concerned Electrical Engineer of the opposite party to issue the electricity bill on the basis of meter reading after April 2014. It was directed that no electricity bill for the period prior to the change of meter shall be issued. The State Commission also increased the compensation to be paid to the complainant to Rs.10,000/- and further awarded litigation cost to the extent of Rs.3,000/-.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission both the complainant as well as the opposite party have filed cross revision petitions. Learned counsel for the opposite party has taken us through the provisions of Part XII of the Electricity Act, 2003 in particular Sections 126 & 127 and submitted that the instant dispute relates to the assessment done under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of UP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed , the consumer fora has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute. Thus, it is obvious that fora below have exceeded their jurisdiction as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. The complainant on the contrary has contended that the order of the District Forum was accepted by the opposite party inasmuch as that the opposite party did not challenge the same. Therefore, now in the revision petition the opposite party cannot raise the above noted plea. It is further contended that the opposite party by raising an arbitrary bill have committed deficiency in service. The complainant, however, in support of his contention has pressed for enhancement of compensation on the ground that in the long drawn litigation he has suffered grave harassment and mental torture for which the compensation of Rs.10,000/- is meager.
7. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Power Corporation & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed (2013) 8 SCC 491 has categorically held that a consumer complaint against the assessment under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the consumer fora. The case of the opposite party is that in the inspection done in April, 2014, the complainant was found using excess load of 4 Kw as against the sanctioned load of 1 Kw. Therefore, provisional assessment of electricity charges was done under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and the disputed bill was raised. We do not find merit in the above contention of the opposite party because if the disputed electricity bill has been raised on the basis of provisional assessment there has to be a provisional assessment order by the concerned authority. The opposite party has failed to produce the provisional assessment order in evidence. Therefore, we find it difficult to held that the said electricity bill was issued on the basis of the provisional assessment. As such we do not find any fault with the order of the District Forum which was not even challenged by the opposite party in appeal. As there is no provisional assessment order on record, the opposite party cannot draw any benefit from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Power Corporation & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed (supra).
8. In view of the above discussion we do not find any merit in the revision petition field by the opposite party. It is accordingly dismissed.
9. Coming to the revision petition of the petitioner, the petitioner has pressed for enhancement of compensation. On perusal of record we find that the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant besides litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. The State Commission after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case has enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and also awarded litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. Taking into account the overall circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the State Commission is reasonable and we find no reason to enhance the same. The revision petition filed by the complainant is, therefore, dismissed.
10. Both the revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
