ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. Member
1. This Revision Petition arises out of the decision of
M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The facts in
brief are that the Petitioner has a small scale industry having
an electric connection for running a 70 horse power machine. The
premises of the petitioner were visited by the Respondent’s
officers who found that the meter was faulty and that one phase
was not giving reading on the meter. a copy of the inspection
report was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, bills for
Rs. 11,082/- and Rs. 6,628/- were sent to the Petitioner herein for
payment. Feeling aggrieved by this, the Petitioner filed a
complaint. The plea of the Respondent was that since one phase
was not recording any reading on the meter the additional charges
were calculated in respect of the said phase on the basis of the
bill for two phases already charged in the regular bill and on a
request from the Petitioner only, the Respondent agreed to take
the average for three moths prior to December, 1993 which worked
out to Rs. 11,501/- Out of this, the Respondents deducted
Rs. 4,873/- already paid by the Appellant (petitioner herein) and
a bill for the balance of Rs. 6,628/- was sent to the petitioner.
The plea of the Respondent is that they have not overcharged or
charged anything extra. The complaint was dismissed by the
District Forum with costs and so was the appeal. The Petitioner
before us has raised a plea that if the meter is found faulty,
the Respondent could not raise a supplementary bill without
referring the matter to the electrical inspector which had
admittedly not ben done in the present case. He has placed
reliance upon the case of M.P.E.B. and Ors. v. Basantibai reported as AIR 1988 SC 71 and S.N. Sunderson (Minerals)
Ltd. (M/s.) v. Junior Engineer, M.P.E.B. M.P. No. 1878 of 1990
(J), decided on 1.4.1997, which also reiterate this fact. In the
light of this clear position, the Revision Petition is accepted
and the orders of the District Forum as well as the State
Commission are set aside. The Respondent is directed to proceed
in accordance with the provisions of Section 26(6) of Electricity
Act, 1910. The supplementary bill could be raised by them only
after obtaining report from the Electrical Inspector, if that
happens to be adverse to the Petitioner. Meanwhile, if the
amount has already been recorded, credit shall be given to the
Respondent for that amount and it will be adjusted in the future
bills. The Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms.