ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the State Commission allowing the complaint.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant enjoyed an electricity connection from the Appellants for running his Flour and Spice Mill. Problem steps with a notice dated 21.1.93 issued by the appellant No. 4 to the Complainant to pay Rs. 45,352/- or account of electricity charges. The break up of above amount was:
Rs.
Arrears 1985-86 2428/-
1989-90 & 1990-91 23051/-
From July'91 to December'92 19873/-
45,352/-
3. Since some amount (Rs. 2428/-) related to very old period, the Complainant requested on 2.2.93 for some time to locate his old records of 1985-86 and to see if he had already paid his bills or not. The appellant disconnected the electricity connection on 14.3.93 which was reconnected on 29.3.1993 after payment of Rs. 1968/- as arrears and Rs. 50/- by way of cost of restoration. Nothing was settled about the rest of the amount. Again a bill of Rs. 70,152.80 was received by the Complainant on 4.4.94, which according to the Complainant was not payable by him. A further notice was issued by the appellant on 24.5.94 demanding payment of Rs. 1,34,365.50 comprising the previous outstanding unpaid arrears and fresh electricity charges and penalty for delayed payment on account of non-payment of any amount, the electricity was again disconnected on 7.6.94. It is in these circumstances that the Complainant approached the State Commission seeking relief amounting a to Rs. 7,80,000/- under various heads. The State Commission after hearing both the parties and after examining material on record and provisions of the Electricity Act, and the Rules framed by the 1st Appellant on the subject, directed payment of Rs. 4,01,000/- to the Complainant under following heads:
Rs.
1. On account of business loss 1,50,000/- 2. On account of Damage to goodwill and injury to 1,50,000/- reputation of the complainant's enterprise 3. On account of mental and emotional suffering 1,00,000/- 4. Cost of litigation 1,000/- 4. This amount was to be paid within two months, falling which interest @ 10% was leviable. The appellants were further directed to give reconnection within 10 days of the order and after making payment enquiry was to be ordered to ensure as to on account of whose fault the Complainant suffered and recover the amount from him. It is against this order the appeal has been field by the Appellant/Respondents.
5. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the awarded relief to the Complainant by the State Commission is totally arbitrary as no details are available to substantiate the award. On the one hand reliefs referred to earlier have been given as well direction to restore the electricity connection has been given but the order is silent on the amounts demanded by the appellant. It was stated that on payment of Rs. 1968/- reconnection was given in March, 1993 with a clear understanding that balance of the payment shall be made in instalments. Meters were replaced from time to time but was found to be ‘stopped’ functioning between 19.12.90 – 31.1.94, hence the bills were raised on average consumption basis for several period and on the basis of meter reading for other periods. The State Commission erred in appreciating the provisions of the Section 26 of the India Electricity Act, 1910. Average reading can be limited to six months only if the matter is referred to Electricity Inspector, which was not the case here. Hence, the very rationale of order of the State Commission is not properly conceived. Proper notice was given to the Complainant both the times before disconnection on account of non-payment of electricity bills raised by the appellant. Provision of the Electricity Act were strictly observed. Under the conditions of supply, the licencee is obliged to pay the bill in full before eaising the dispute on the amount charged-which was not done in this case hence disconnection was as per rules. The order of the State Commission is bad in law and on facts, hence need to be set aside. On the other hand it was argued by the Respondent that the reconnection in March, 1993 was given on payment of Rs. 1968/- i.e. as a result of scaling down of the bill and as a full and final payment being accepted. This is also admitted by the Appellant in his memorandum of appeal. There is nothing on record to show that it was anything else. Notice given to the Complainant was to make payment within 7 days otherwise action would be taken according to the Indian Electricity Act. This case not be said to mean proper notice under provision of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act and he State Commission was right in not accepting this as a proper notice.
6. Five meters were changed, but each of the meter was defective piece. There is no ground to keep on charging him on average basis. The Appellant should have ensured that a proper and working meter is installed and demand made as per reading on the meter. Why should the appellant be raising bills for three months/six months period, and in one case, in January 1993, raised a demand relating to the period in 1985. Second bill for the period 4.1.93 to 4.4.1994 for Rs. 75,153/- was raised which is abnormally high and for exceeds the average consumption during the past period. Perhaps, the appellants were annoyed by the Complainant having moved the State Commission. This is no way of functioning of a Government body. The order of the State Commission need to be upheld both on points of fact and law and the appeal be dismissed with costs.
7. We have sen the material on record and heard the arguments. There is no dispute that the Complainant has been a consumer of the appellant since 1985. There are two periods of dispute. The first emanating with the Memorandum dated 21.1.93, which relates to the Billing period April-July, 1985, July, 1989, April, 1990, January, April, July, 1991 and July 1991 – December, 1992. The total amount of demand raised is Rs. 45,352/-. The memorandum states that if this amount is not paid within 7 days, appropriate action as Indian Electricity Act will be taken for such non-payment. The second period of dispute relates to period 1991-92 (July, 1991) 1992-93 (July 1991 – January 1993) and 1993-94 (Jan 1993 – April 1994) for a total amount of Rs. 1,34,365.50/-. This is contained in the Notice dated 24.5.94. Much has been made out by the Complainant/Respondent before us that these cannot be deemed to be a notice for disconnection under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act. We see no discrepancy on this score. Word ‘Notice’ and not ‘Memorandum’ could have made some difference, but the tenor is clear. Pay or face action. However, what we find difficult to understand is why have not the copies of the Bills, as at the time of issue – monthly, quarterly, six monthly, whatever be the case – now purported to be recovered from the Respondent, been produced before the State Commission or before us by the Appellants. Two things we do not understand. In the year 1993, demand is raised for the period 1985 also? If the amount of bills for the period July 1989 – April, 1991 were not paid – what action was taken to recover these amounts. We are constrained to draw an adverse inference that perhaps Bills for these periods were not raised/sent at all. Again on record we see three bills, one for the period April-June, 91, and second for July’91 to December, 1992 (18 months) and again for Jan., 1993 to April, 1994 (16 months) we see that any system of good governance has been given a go by – by the appellants. We also see that the notice of Jan, 1993, comprise of the Bill amount, comprising the energy consumed, meter rent and a sort of penalty for delayed payment. This is further augmented by penal charges. If the regular Bills are not raised how could the complainant be liable to pay penalty which appears to be compounded. We also see that five meters are replaced on different dates but as per appellants own admission everytime they went to take reading, they found it stopped, between 19.12.90 and 31.1.1994. If that was the case that how come we see bills raised on meter reading for the period 6.10.90 to 3.1.91 and 4.1.93 to 4.4.94? Be that as it may, it is the duty of the appellant that meter installed is in working order unless challenged on the basis of any tampering by a licencee. This is not the case here.
8. We see some merit in the contention of the appellant that they can raise bill on average consumption for same period, but can do it for six months in case the dispute is referred to a the Electricity Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. Since in the instant case, matter was not referred to the Inspector, there is no bar in the appellant to raise bills based on average consumption but this can not go on for an undefinite period.
9. The above discussions lead us to conclude that there has been deficiency on both the sides. The appellant not raising the bills in time, not providing meter properly for reading, raising accumulated demand through one or two bills. The deficiency on the part of the complainant is not to make the payment of Bill when raised. Even it it is concede as contended, that the first reconnection was done on payment aof Rs. 1968/-, we see nothing on record as to what did he do to pay or get reconnection after his supply line was disconnected as a result of notice served on 24.5.94. As per Conditions of Supply, the appellants were within right to disconnect for non payment of the energy bill after notice, which was done in this case. This should have been paid and then the dispute raised to be settled either by mutual discussions or by referring to arbitration as per the Indian Electricity Act. No such effort was made. Inspite of that all we see nothing on record to support/substantiate the damages claimed and much less the grounds/basis for grant of reliefs awarded by the State Commission. However, the loss of business amounting to Rs. 1.5 lakh proved/arrived athis not on record. Similar is the case with reliefs granted in respect of injury to reputation and mental and emotional suffering. We see no proof/evidence on record in support of the reliefs awarded. We are also unable to appreciate the silence in the order of the State Commission on the payments demanded by the appellant and yet directing him to restore electricity connection and not saying a word on the payment of electricity charges. It is not the complainant’s case that the period for which bills were demanded/raised, he did not use the electricity or his factory did not function. The period of dispute relates to early 1990’s and as per our interim order dated 1.12.95, connection would have been restored. What remains to be settled is the question of payment of electricity bill by the Respondent and payment of damages by the appellants, if any. In our view ends of justice shall be met if the complainant is directed to pay the electricity bills less the penalties imposed. We see on record that of the three bills in question – i.e. referred to in the Notice dated 24.5.1994, the first two are based on average of consumption and the third bill is raised on meter reading. The amount thus payable shall be Rs. 97,539/- covering period spread over three and a half year i.e. July, 1991 to April, 1994, of which as per our order dated 1.12.95, Rs. 15,000/- would already have been paid by the complainant to the appellant. We also see that there have been deficiencies on the part of the appellant. We also see that the unit of the Complainant remained closed from April, 1994 to December, 1995. Even when no details are on record but presumption cannot be denied that the Complainant would have suffered losses. In the light of which we can sustain only Rs. 1.5 lakhs granted by the State Commission by way of business loss. Only to this extent the appeal is allowed. Any amount shall become payable by either side, after adjusting the outstanding amount of electricity bill as per our orders above, as well payment of one-half of compensation awarded by the State Commission as per our interim order dated 1.12.95. The Complainant shall also be entitled to cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be payable by the appellant to the respondent.