M.P.ELECTRICITY BOARD vs BABOO LAL

THE Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board represented by the Assistant Engineer, Betul is the revision petitioner before us. The challenge raised in the revision petition is against the order dated 9.12.93 passed by the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the respondent herein, (the complainant in the case) together with a sum of Rs. 500/- by way of costs and granting a declaration that the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board is not entitled to recover any amount from the complainant on the basis that the meter fixed in the complainant''s premises was defective unless the Board refers the matter to the Electrical Inspector and gets it decided through him.

AFTER hearing both sides, we are clearly of opinion that the order passed by the State Commission is illegal and without jurisdiction and it has therefore to be set aside. The State Commission has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the Electricity Board had issued the bill in question to the respondent-complainant on the basis that the meter in the complainant''s premises was defective and did not record correctly the actual consumption of energy in the complainant''s factory. From the records, it is clearly seen that the present case is one where the Aduit Party of the Electricity Board which conducted a surprise inspection of the consumer premises found that the meter in the complainant''s factory had been tampered with by reversing it on one side with the result that the meter was recording energy in forward direction on two phases and in the reverse direction on one phase thereby bringing about the overall consequence that the meter was recording only 1/3 of the total consumption. On detection of this illegal tampering with the meter connection, the Audit Party prepared a "Panchnama" on the spot on January 9,1990 and raised the impugned bill for Rs. 9,787-90 for the period April, 1989 to February, 1990 and it was this bill that was served on the complainant with a demand for payment. Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act vests the Electricity Board with the power to take such action in the event of illegal tampering of meter connection and Section 23 of the said Act authorises such billing. Thus this was not at all a case where there was any inherent defect in the meter so as to require the meter being referred to the Electrical Inspector before serving a bill and making a demand for its payment as has been wrongly assumed by the State Commission. Inasmuch as the records clearly prove that there was tampering with the meter connection by the consumer it cannot be said that there was any ''deficiency'' in service on the part of the Electricity Board so as to warrant the grant of any relief to the consumer in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. As already pointed out, the order of the State Commission has proceeded wholly on the wrong basis that this was not case of the meter being suspected to be defective which factually was at all the position.

THE order of the State Commission granting the reliefs aforementioned to the respondent is wholly without jurisdiction and it is hereby set aside. The Revision Petition is allowed as above and the complaint filed by the respondent will stand hereby dismissed.