ELECTRICITY SERVICE AND THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Disconnection without notice:

It is true that when a consumer does not pay the bill, the SEB gets the right to disconnect the power connection. But the question is should not the consumer be informed about disconnection? If so, what is the time allowed for payment before disconnection? If the SEB disconnects without proper notice, does it amount to deficiency in service?

Here again in a number of cases the consumer forum and commission have decided that it is the duty of the SEB to inform the consumer before disconnecting power supply. In cases where senior citizens and patients are involved, it has said that disconnection should be a last resort. Here it is worthwhile to quote the relevant section of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

Section 24 of the IEA. 1910, contains provisions relating to disconnection. It says that 'where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply-line or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply are paid, but no longer.

The following points emerge out of the above:

  • SEBs should give prior notice before resorting to disconnection

  • The notice should be in writing

  • The period of notice is seven clear days

Many of the SEBs print a clause in their bills that 'the bill itself should be treated as seven days notice' for disconnection, in case the payment is not made. Is this valid? Consumer forums and commission have held that a separate notice is required. In the case of Karnataka Electricity Board vs. H.P.Roygada (1992) the Karnataka State Commission said that the consumer should have been given seven days clear notice that his installation is being disconnected. Further it went on to observe that the KEB was under a duty to satisfy itself that the consumer had in fact received the notice'

However, when SEBs disconnect power supply on grounds of theft of power or tampering of the meter and other equipments, there is no necessity for it to give prior notice of disconnection. In the case of CESC vs. Sumitra Patel (1997) it was found that the consumer, a owner of a beauty parlour, had tampered the equipment and was drawing power directly from the service cut out and not through the meter.

Holding that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the CESC, the National Commission observed thus: A power is conferred upon the petitioner company (CESC) under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to disconnect electric supply and it does not privide for any notice being given to the consumer where on inspection it was found that the metering equipment had been tampered with and the meter was being bypassed in consumption of electricity by artificial means within the meaning of Section 39 of the said Act are prima facie evidence of theft'.

In another case (MPEB vs. Babulal) the National Commission has held that where there is tampering of the meter by the consumer, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in the service rendered by the SEB so as to warrant the grant of any relief to the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

In one interesting case the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has been held guilty of deficiency in service for its failure to restore power supply to a consumer. In this case Mr.P.Jagadesan, a shop keeper was having power connection for the past ten years. The power supply was disconnected as the line was found to obstsruct to the procession of the Chief Minister to pass that way. However, power supply was not restored after the event. The National Commission which gave the final verdict said that failure of the TNEB to reconnect electric supply which was disconnected to meet a temporary need, was a case of deficiency in service.