AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against order dated 4.3.1999 passed by the District Forum, Suri, Birbhum.
IT appears that the District Forum cancelled the electric bills raised by the opposite parties for the period from May, 1994 to December, 1994. IT directed the opposite parties to make refund of the amount of the bill paid by the petitioner for the period from 22.5.1989 to 12.3.1990. The opposite parties were further directed to give electric supply to the petitioner from a nearby 63 K. V. A. on payment of money, if required for such connection. The facts leading to the case may be stated briefly.
The petitioner was the consumer of electricity. He has installed a motor of 5 H.P. in his field to irrigate his land during Boro season through a Shallow Tubewell. He alleged that due to hooking in the electric line he did not get any supply of electricity on his account though the opposite parties raised bills which he was compelled to pay.
HIS further case is that from June, 1989 to February, 1990 the Transformer from which he used to get electric supply, was damaged and as such he was deprived of enjoying electricity, but, the opposite parties raised bills which he paid on protest. The petitioner brought these facts to the notice of the opposite parties regarding theft of electricity and the damaged condition of Transformer, but without any result. The petitioner adduced oral evidence in support of his contention and the witnesses have supported his case regarding theft of electric energy by the process of hooking by unknown persons. The opposite party raised the bills on the account of the petitioner though in fact there had been theft of electric energy from the line of the petitioner by the process of hooking. It appears that the Transformer from which the petitioner used to enjoy electric energy remained inoperative for the period mentioned in the petition of complainant. This fact was not disputed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not take any steps to prevent theft of electric energy by the process of hooking, instead, they went on billing the petitioner. Accordingly the Forum thought it necessary to cancel same bills and to make order for refund of other bills.
LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to a case reported in 1997 (1) CHN (S.C.) 50, to contend that in case of dispute or difference about the correctness of the meter or the correctness of the bill, the consumer may apply to the Electrical Inspectors. The petitioner ought to have availed of the statutory remedy provided by Sections 26(4) and 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act before approaching the Forum and it was not proper for the Forum to direct the opposite parties to cancel bills raised by the opposite parties and to make refund of the amount already paid by the petitioner in respect of some of the bills. LEARNED Lawyer for the respondent submits that the case cited by the learned Lawyer for the appellant has no application to the facts of present case inasmuch as this is not a dispute regarding correctness of the meter, but wrong billing on the basis of consumption of electricity by unscrupulous person by way of hooking process. The petitioner had actually protest against theft of energy from his line by hooking process but to no effect. There was a Committee under the Panchayat to look after theft of electric energy in the area, but the report of the said Committee is not available. The Committee could not prevent theft of energy from the line of the petitioner. The opposite parties went of billing the petitioner for the energy not consumed by the petitioner but, consumed by the other persons through hooking process. Admittedly, the Transformer from which the petitioner drew the electrical energy was out of order for several months. Even then the opposite parties billed the petitioner. This is highly irregular. Therefore, it is felt that the authority cited by learned Lawyer for the appellant has no manner of application to the facts of the present case. We feel and hold that the Forum has correctly decided the matter and issued the directions as narrated above. We find no reason to upset the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the order appealed against is hereby affirmed. Appeal dismissed.