ORDER Justice Surinder Sarup (Retd.), President. 1. By way of the present complaint, Indus Hospital professing itself to be a charitable organization registered with the Registrar of Societies in Himachal Pradesh and being sponsored and operated by the Indus Medical Foundation on No Profit No Loss basis the complaint having been filed through its duly authorised Administrator Shri Jiwan Singh, has challenged the consumer bill for the month of May, 2000 vide copy Annexure C-7 of the record. The impugned bill has been issued by the opposite parties being the H.P State Electricity Board through its Secretary and the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, HPSEB, Sanjauli 2. It is stated in the complaint that the said Hospital applied for 245.00 KV of connected load from the opposite parties in the year 1993 which was sanctioned by them and the requisite amount was deposited for this purpose and the subsequent electricity bills were being also duly paid. It is further stated that the on the asking of the opposite parties, the complainant installed its own private electricity meter after purchasing it from a Firm in Delhi and the same was checked by the concerned officials of the opposite parties for its correctness and sealed as per the law. rules and regulations governing the supply of electricity to a consumer in the State of Himachal Pradesh. A satisfaction note was obtained in this behalf from the then Administrator on 24.9.1993. 3. On an average the complainant-Hospital was receiving monthly electricity bills amounting to Rs. 17,000/- and the same were being duly paid by the due dates. However, in the monthly of February, 2000, it received an excessive bill in the sum of Rs. 39,492/- (Annexure C-1) which was also paid, but a protest was lodged with opposite party No.2,by sending a communication dated 7.3.2000 (Annexure C-2) giving details of other bills with effect from January, 1999 to January, 2000 and opposite party No.2 was requested Rs. 17,747/- for the month of March, 2000 (Annexure C-3) was again issued which was also paid. Subsequently, for the month of April, 2000, a bill in the huge sum of Rs. 1,60,397/- (Annexure C-4) was issued. 17,747/- for the month of March, 2000 (Annexure C-3) was again issued which was also paid. Subsequently, for the month of April, 2000, a bill in the huge sum of Rs. 1,60,397/- (Annexure C-4) was issued. The reason for this sudden spurt in the amount of the power bill as communicated vide a letter dated 16.3.2000 (Annexure C-5) by the opposite parties was that by mistake the consumption of the energy consumed as per the meter installed in the Hospital complex was being recorded as 1/10th of the actual consumption due to non accountable of (units digit) last digit of meter which is evident from the ledger records and the bills issued to the complainant 4. Subsequently, correspondence ensued between the parties in the matter and things came to a head when a bill in the sum of Rs. 18,76,137/- (Annexures C-7) inclusive of arrears was sent by the opposite parties. It is stated in the complaint that a sum of Rs. 1,01,610/- (Annexure C-8 to C-10) has already been paid and now a balance of Rs. 19,98,350/- remains to be paid as per the demand of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint on the ground of unfair trade practice by the opposite parties for raising the demand of such a huge sum as arrears on the ground and explanation referred to above. 5. In the reply to the complaint by the opposite parties, various preliminary objections have been raised. Firstly, it is stated that the complainant approached the District Forum in the year 2000 for Redressal of his grievance but since the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, the complaint was withdrawn with liberty to approach the proper Forum. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application before the Chief Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act The said inspector held that the bill had been correctly raised by the HPSEB, but at the same time he ordered that only half of the amount should be realized, without any authority of law vested in him. The HPSEB appealed against this order which was allowed by the Secretary (MPP & Power) of Himachal Pradesh Government and the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector was set aside. The same is final and binding on the parties and hence this Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed in appeal. The HPSEB appealed against this order which was allowed by the Secretary (MPP & Power) of Himachal Pradesh Government and the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector was set aside. The same is final and binding on the parties and hence this Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed in appeal. The documents in this behalf have been enclosed with the reply as Annexures R.1 to P.6 respectively. Secondly, it is stated that the complaint is beyond the period of limitation. 6. On merits, most of the facts alleged in the complaint have been admitted. At the same time, it has been stated that a perusal of the annexures attached with the reply of the Board before the District Forum will reveal that prior to August, 1997, the monthly consumption of the complainant varied from 10,000 units to 30,000 units whereas from September, 1997 to March, 2000 it came down to as much as from 600 to 3000 units per month. This consumption; was shown as the meter readers of the Board did not multiply the readings of the meter by 10 as was to be done in case of the meter installed at the premises of the complainant. This error on their part continued from September, 1997 to March, 2000 i.e. for a period of 30 months. When the mistake was detected, the account of the complainant was overhauled for all the 30 months and the demand of about Rs. 21,00,000/- was raised against the Hospital. It is stated in the reply that when this fact was well known to the complainant from the very beginning when it was first pointed out to him, he should have felt that the total consumption by him from September, 1997 onwards was very much on the lower side and had hoff been vigilant, he could have enquired the reasons for such low consumption from the HPSEB. Even after March, 2000, his consumption of electricity is much above 5000 units per month and he is paying the bills of this consumption without any protest. All these facts have been reproduced from para-6 of the reply to foe complaint 7. The complainant has supported the pleadings in the complaint through an affidavit by way of evidence of Shri Jiwan Singh, its Administrator. This is besides the documents annexed with the complaint and referred to above. 8. All these facts have been reproduced from para-6 of the reply to foe complaint 7. The complainant has supported the pleadings in the complaint through an affidavit by way of evidence of Shri Jiwan Singh, its Administrator. This is besides the documents annexed with the complaint and referred to above. 8. On behalf of the opposite parties. Copy of the order passed by the Board. Level Disputes Settlement Committee dated 16.6.2003 and the order passed in some other case by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh have been filed as evidence. 9. The position on the merits of the case points out to the situation that as per the reply of the Board, its Meter Reader failed to multiply the reading of the meter installed in the premises of the complainants Hospital by 10 as was normally to be done, ft is further stated that this error continued for a period of 30 months. It was wily when the mistake on the part of the Meter Reader was detected that the account of the complainant was overhauled for the said period of 30 months and Straightway a demand of about Rs. 20,000/- was raised against the said Hospital. In other words, for the glaring mistake which amounts to palpable negligence of its own Meter Readers, the Board wants to slap a demand of Rs. 21,00,000/- out of the blue on the complainant-hospital thus taking it totally unawares, it is beyond comprehension and understanding that for a continuous period of 30 months and mistake on the part of the concerned Meter Reader remained undetected and the supervisory staff of the Board whose job it was to oversee such meter readings, remained blissfully negligent of the said mistake over such a long period to time. This plea defied all logic and would also not stand the test of normal course of human conduct. Therefore, in our considered view, these admitted facts are nothing short of deficiency in service on the part of the Board qua the supply of power to a public utility as well as essential health service provider such as the complainant-hospital 10. This plea defied all logic and would also not stand the test of normal course of human conduct. Therefore, in our considered view, these admitted facts are nothing short of deficiency in service on the part of the Board qua the supply of power to a public utility as well as essential health service provider such as the complainant-hospital 10. Insofar as the decision of the Board level Disputes Settlement Committee in respect of the present dispute between the parties, on which strong reliance has been placed by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, is concerned, it has been rendered by the Chief Engineer and two Members of the HP State Electricity Board itself. It is surprising that rather than taking to task the delinquent staff i.e. Meter Readers and others for their continuous mistake over a period of 30 months bordering on blatant negligence, the said Committee has chosen to place responsibility on the complainant-Hospital by holding in its order that it was well aware of the bill received by it before September, 1997 and the sudden drop in the bill amount/consumption of energy could have been a cause of concern for it At the same time, it has been noticed in the order by the said Committee that less consumption was due to under-billing/lapse on the part of HPSEB. For the reasons recorded hereinabove and the view that we have taken in this dispute, we do not agree with the findings of the Board Level Disputes Settlement Committee and the same is otherwise not binding on us. 11. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 8.1.1998 rendered in a Miscellaneous Application arising out of a Civil suit fled by the Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. against the HPSEB and another. That order in the Miscellaneous Petition arising out of a civil suit was in respect of that case having its peculiar facts and has no bearing to the facts of the instant case. 12. Insofar as the preliminary objections taken in the reply of the Board are concerned, the same are without any force. Liberty was reserved to the complainant by the District Forum to approach the proper Forum as the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. 12. Insofar as the preliminary objections taken in the reply of the Board are concerned, the same are without any force. Liberty was reserved to the complainant by the District Forum to approach the proper Forum as the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The filing of an application under the provisions of Electricity Act which was partly allowed by the competent authority giving rise to an appeal by the Board, would not debar the complainant from approaching this Commission by way of the present complaint, which remedy was available to him under the statutory provisions of a Central Law which would have a hover-riding effect of any decision, adverse or otherwise, which may have been given against him by the Secretary concerned of the Himachal Pradesh Government in the aforesaid appeal. Moreover, liberty was reserved to the complainant to approach the proper Forum by the order of the District Forum and he has availed of that remedy by way of the present complaint 13. In fairness to the learned counsel for the complainant he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case Ashok Kapil V. Sana Ullah (Dead) and others. (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 342. Reference to the legal maxim in that decision by the highest Court of the land to the effect that no man can taken advantage of his own wrong is being relied upon by him to substantiate the submission that the complainant cannot by penalised for the mistake/negligence on the part of the functionaries of the Board. To that extent the observations in the said ruling of the Supreme Court support his case. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint of the Indus Hospital is partly allowed in the following terms:- (i) the demand raised through the impugned bill of May, 2000 v\6e Annexure C-7 to the complaint and the coercive action taken or sought to be taken in pursuance thereof is quashed. At the same, time it is however made clear that as already directed, by out interim order dated 2.12.2002, the installments towards payments of the arrears as agreed upon between the parties prior to the filing of the complaint, and which may have already been paid till date by the complainant to the Board, shall not be refunded nor the complainant shall be entitled to get the amount of the said installments, refunded from the Board. The balance amount in pursuance of the impugned bill aforementioned which remains to be realised from the complainant shall not be recovered from him in any manner by the Board. (ii) for the harassment caused to the complainant due to the illegal and highhanded act of the Board in this behalf, it shall pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/-as compensations/damages. The costs of the complaint quantified in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- shall also be paid by the Board to the complainant in respect of the present complaint Before parting with this judgment we deem it our legal and moral duty to observe that for the loss caused to the Board due to the gross negligence of its concerned staff by wrong meter reading and lack of supervision in the matter over a prolonged and continuous period of 30 months should not go unpunished. It would be in public interest and indeed most desirable in the present day world that the delinquent staff. Including the concerned Meter Reader and supervisory officials are proceeded against under the rules and disciplinary proceedings initiated against them on the ground of accountability and thereafter in the light of the resultant findings of the enquiry responsibility is placed and commensurate penalty/punishment is awarded, including initiating recovery proceedings on those thus held responsible. We hope and trust acted upon by the competent authority of the HPSEB in order to ensure accountability as well as act as a lesson for the future to all concerned. The complaint is thus disposed of.-