Parkash Chand vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS is an appeal by the complainant whose complaint has been dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana vide the impugned order dated 10.11.2005 in the following terms: "9. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is accepted and the demand of Rs. 12,455 raised by the respondent vide bill Ex. P4 is quashed and the respondent is directed to refer this dispute to the Chief Electrical Inspector in terms of the rules and regulations within a month from the receipt of copy of this order who will decide the matter afresh. The amount deposited by the complainant will be adjusted against the demand, if any, raised by the Chief Electrical Inspector. In case the dispute is not referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector by either party, the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant would be refunded to him. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties. File be completed and consigned to the record room."

THE grievance made in the present appeal is that after it was found that the demand of Rs. 12,455 raised vide bill dated 9.3.2005, Ex. P4, was to be quashed, the District Forum should have passed an order giving adequate compensation. THE District Forum primarily allowed the complaint that the matter in dispute was referable under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In paragraph 8 of the order it was observed by the District Forum as under: "8. THE question for determination is as to whether the dispute regarding the faulty meter is to be decided by the Chief Electrical Inspector. Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act lays down that wherever dispute arises regarding the faulty meter, then the matter shall be decided by the Chief Electricial Inspector on the application of either party or a competent person specially appointed by the State Govt. In such circumstances, when the Chief Electrical Inspector is the only statutory authority to decide the dispute, it squarely falls within the provisions of the Act. It is the admitted case that the meter was checked and its two phases were found to have been not running. THE complainant has himself signed the checking report Ex. P.1. In such circumstances, on account of this faulty meter, the Chief Electrical Inspector is the statutory authority to decide the dispute. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the following cases: (1) W.B.S.E.B. v. Bedeshtulla SK, reported in 2005 (1) CLT 135. (2) M.P.E.B. & Ors. v. Smt. Basantibai, reported in AIR 1988 SC 71. (3) Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr., reported in 1997 (2) Civil Court Cases 616."

The complaint was allowed on a wholly technical ground. It is not necessary that in such cases compensation must follow. Apart from the above, we have our serious reservations about the observations made by the District Forum in paragraph 8 of the order inasmuch as on the day when the cause of action arose and on the day when the impugned order was passed, there was no Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 inasmuch as that Act stood repealed by Electricity Act, 2003 and no provision parallel to Section 26(6) of the 1910 Act has been brought to our notice which may exist in the 2003 Act. Be that as it may, the Electricity Board has not come up in appeal qua the directions given by the District Forum.

As observed above, we do not find that if no compensation has been ordered to be paid by the District Forum, it calls for any interference. The appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.