M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SHIVKANT CHOUBEY

THE opposite party, M.P. Electricity Board has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'') against the order dated 30th June, 1997 passed in Case No. 14/93 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (for short the ''District Forum'').

IT is not in dispute that the two meter Nos. 053070 and 053071 are installed by the appellant-Board in the premises of the complainant. The meter reading was not taken for a period of about six months from January, 1992 to July, 1992 and average bill of Rs. 281 /- per month was sent. The Executive Engineer having suspected theft of electricity visited the spot and recorded meter reading of which the bill of Rs. 2,373/- was sent for August, 1992. The complainant who is the consumer filed a complaint before the District Forum challenging the demand so raised on the alleged deficiency in service. The defence was that the meter reader could not take the meter reading for a period of six months as the two meters are installed at a height and the consumer kept a ferocious dog who did not allow the meter reader to take the meter reading. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence and material on record in particular the report dated 23.9.1992 of the Executive Engineer of the M.P.E.B. observed that in fact the meter reader did not take the meter reading, hence the inconvenience was caused to the consumer of payment of the large amount of bill for the month of August, 1992. However, the District Forum did not quash the bill of Rs. 2,373/-, but for the deficiency in service for a continuation period of six months by the employee of the M.P.E.B. awarded compensation of Rs. 500/- and costs of the proceedings of Rs. 200/-.

Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in the facts of the case it was not possible to take meter reading regularly. It is only in the presence of the owner of the house, the Executive Engineer recorded the meter reading, and that there was no dispute with respect of the average billing therefore, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service. The reliance was placed on a decision of the National Commission in the case of Y.N. Gupta v. Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking, I (1993) CPJ 25 (NC).

HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the order of the District Forum, we are of the opinion that this appeal has no merit. On the facts which have come on record it cannot be doubted that there was deficiency in service as the meter reader did not record the meter reading for a continuous period of six months, therefore, average bills were sent. It is the duty of the M.P.E.B. and its employees that the bills for electrical consumptions are to be prepared and served on the appointed time in accordance with the billing cycle. If that is not done that would amount to deficiency in service. As the consumer had to pay the heavy arrears of bill which amounts to harassment to the consumer, see Y.N. Gupta''s case (supra), that being deficiency in service. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.