ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, E.R.O. vs N. TIMMARISHESHWAR RAO

THE complainant in CD 184/91 District Forum, Nalgonda is the owner of house bearing No. 3-80, Nayanagar, Kodad and obtained electricity service connection No. 680 on 23.7.73. Initially the service was under category No. II i.e. non-domestic. Subsequently from 1.3.1985 it was converted from non-domestic to domestic category. According to the complainant he shifted his family to Hyderabad in January, 1987 and has been residing in Hyderabad and his house at Kodad was kept locked till January, 1990. In January, 1990, his house was let out. Initially the Electricity bills were paid on the basis of slab fixed at Rs. 10/- per month and subsequently the category was changed to Rs. 15/- and thereafter to Rs. 18/-. According to the complainant he has been paying the bills according to the slab rate as could be seen from Ex. A-l, adjustment bill for the period from October, 1983 to September, 1984. Ex. A-2 is the bill dated 20.2.1985 for the period from 11/84 to 2/85 for Rs.50/-. Exs.A-3.A-4 and A-5 are the receipts dated 8.3.1985,7.5.1985, and 11.7.1985 for Rs. 10/-, Rs. 10/- and Rs. 70/-. Ex. A-6 is the receipt dated 6.1.1986 for Rs. 120/- from 1/86 to 12/86. Ex. A-7 is the receipt for Rs. 15/- dated 12.3.1990 for February, 1990. Ex. A-8 is the receipt for Rs. 15/- dated 11.4.1990 for March 1990. Ex. A-9 is the receipt dated 24.3.1990 for Rs. 16/-, Ex. A-10 is the receipt dated 29.6.1990 for Rs. 15.30 ps, Ex. A-II is the receipt dated 28.7.1990 for Rs. 15.20 ps for June, 1990, Ex. A-12 is the receipt for Rs. 15.20 ps dated 28.8.1990 for the month of July, 1990, and Ex. A-13 is the receipt for Rs. 46.10 ps dated 4.12.1990 for months of August, 1990 to October, 1990. But although nobody was residing in the house from January, 1987 to January, 1990 and thereafter the complainant used to go only occasionally for his agricultural purposes and the complainant was using only one bulb that too for 3 to 4 hours during the nights whenever he stayed in Kodad, but the opposite parties issued a bill on 4.5.1991 for a sum of Rs. 4527.50 ps said to be an adjustment bill for the period from March, 1982 to May, 1989. Inspite of repeated representations made by the complainant stating that there was no current consumption and he was only using one bulb, the bill for arrears cannot be issued for a period of 7 years, the opposite parties did not consider the case of the complainant and disconnected the power supply as could be seen from Ex. B-l dated 25.4.1991. THE complaint was therefore filed on 5.9.1991 questioning the adjustment bill dated 4.5.1991 and also seeking a direction to the opposite parties not to cut the current supply until the matter is decided by the District Forum.

ON 6.4.1992 the complainant also sent a representation to the District Forum stating that due to disconnection of power supply from May, 1991 till April, 1992, the house was kept vacant and the complainant would have received a rent of Rs. 7800/- for that period and prayed for a direction to pay damages. The opposite parties in their version stated that initially the service was released on 23.7.1973 under non-domestic category and the monthly slab card was Rs. 18/- upto October, 1983, and Rs. 30/- upto February, 1985. Subsequently the service was changed to category No. I, i.e. from Non Domestic Category to domestic category with effect from 1.3.1985. Normally adjustment bill will be issued once in a year during the existence of the slab system. The consumer has paid all the monthly slab card amounts under category I and II after 12/86 but he did not pay the adjustment bill for the current consumption actually utilised by him from February, 1982 to May, 1989 for Rs. 4527.50 ps and that the adjustment bill was issued for 7 years on account of non receipt of readings from the field section office and inadequacy of staff in the ERO office as well as in the field section office. As the complainant failed to pay the adjustment bill the disconnection was effected and it will not amount to any deficiency of service. On behalf of the complainant PWs. 1 to 4 were examined, and Exs. A-l to A-18 were marked, and on behalf of the opposite parties RWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. B-l to B-3 were marked. Ex. B-l is the report dated 23.11.1991, Ex. B-2 is the report dated 18,6.1992 and Ex. B-3 is the petition in Ex. B-2.

The District Forum found that there are laches on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing the adjustment bill regularly once in a year during the slab system, that the complainant has been paying the bill amounts as and when they were issued. The bill Ex. A-16 for the period from March, 1982 to May, 1989 i.e. arrears prior to 4.5.1989 will be barred by limitation i.e. over three years, and that the opposite parties failed to produce the meter reading books before the Forum as to the date when actually recorded the readings, and that Ex. B-l reveals that the current consumption charges for the period from May, 1989 to October, 1989 were also included in Ex. B-l which forms part of Ex. A-16 and that as per Ex. B-l the service connection was disconnected on 25.4.1991 whereas under Ex. A-16 the last date for payment of amount is 18.5.1991 i.e. disconnection was effected even prior to the expiry of the date of payment. It accordingly held that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly set aside the impugned bill Ex. A-16 for Rs. 4527.50 ps and hence the complainant was entitled for reconnection of electricity service.

WITH regard to quantum of compensation, the District Forum held that no specific amount of compensation was claimed in the complaint in the first instance and the complainant did not enter into the witness box to speak about his illness and mental agony suffered by him and hence no compensation was directed to be paid to the complainant. But awarded costs of Rs. 200/-. Questioning the aforesaid" order, the opposite parties preferred FA 1097/96 and the complainant preferred FA 3/97.

AS common questions arise for consideration, we are disposing of both the appeals by a common order. So far as the appeal preferred by the A.P.S.E. Board is concerned, it is not in dispute that the complainant as and when the bills were issued except Ex. A-l 6 adjustment bill from March, 1982 till May, 1989 i.e. for a period of 7 years and 3 months paid the amount. Ex. B-l shows that the power supply was disconnected on 25.4.1991 for non payment of electricity charges for December, 1990. The National Commission held in Bombay Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, III (1993) CPJ 381 (NC) held that recovery of arrears for more than 3 years would be barred by limitation and the District Forum therefore rightly held that the arrears for the period prior to 4.5.1988 covered under the adjustment bill Ex. A-16 is clearly barred by time.

IT is to be seen that even according to the opposite parties the adjustment bill has to be issued once in a year. But in the instant case the adjustment bill was issued after 7 years and the failure to issue adjustment bill according to the billing cycle resulting in harassment of the complainant will amount to deficiency in service.

IN I (1993) CPJ 25 (NC), Y.N. Gupta v. D.E.S.U., the National Commission held that "It was a deficiency in service that the bills for electrical consumption were not prepared and served at the appointed time in accordance with the billing cycle and thereafter harassing the consumer with heavy arrears bill and disconnect the power supply in any arbitrary and high handed way will amount to deficiency in service. IN the instant case no notice was also given before disconnection. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Kumar, I (1996) CPJ 306 (NC), it was held by the National Commission that as per the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act a notice not less than 7 days shall be given before disconnection, and that failure to give notice renders the disconnection illegal. We are therefore satisfied that the District Forum rightly held that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and cancelled the adjustment bill Ex. A-16 for Rs. 4,527.50 Ps. and directed re-connection.

During the pendency of the appeal, the Electricity Board sought stay of the said direction of re-connection. But the said petition was dismissed and therefore the complainant is having power supply as on today. We therefore do not see any merits in the appeal preferred by the opposite parties and it is accordingly dismissed.

IN the appeal preferred by the complainant, it is submitted that the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for illegal disconnection of power supply by the opposite parties and for the huge loss suffered by the complainant in addition to severe mental agony and harassment. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings and the evidence in the case.

IN the complaint signed by the complainant and filed on 5.9.1991, no mention was made about any loss sustained by the complainant by reason of not getting tenants for a period of one year due to disconnection of power supply. No mention was also made about the rental of the premises as even according to the complainant it was let out to the tenant. But in the letter written to the District Forum dated 6.4.1992 it was stated that the house was kept vacant due to disconnection of power supply and thereby the complainant is loosing a rental of Rs. 7800/- and also incurred expenditure of Rs. 600/- for going to District Forum, Nalgonda about six times and requested for a direction for payment of the said amounts. Therefore the complainant did not attend the District Forum and authorised his wife to attend the Forum and his wife was examined as PW 1. PW 1 in her evidence did not say as to what was the loss of rent and also did not mention about any loss or damage suffered by the complainant. Similarly there was no mention of any loss or damage in the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4. Nothing was suggested to the witness for the opposite parties (RW 1 to RW 4) about the loss said to have been suffered by the complainant due to house being kept vacant for non supply of power and also about any illness or inconvenience suffered by the complainant. Thus there is no pleading and evidence on record to show that the complainant suffered ill health or any inconvenience and what is the amount that he lost by keeping the house vacant. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohan Lal & Sons, I (1992) CPJ 132 (NC)=1992 (1) CPR page 364. In the said case, it was observed as follows: "We reiterate that if the facts of a complaint before a Consumer Forum reveal that the amount payable to the complainant by way of the refund of the price of the goods or of the value of service rendered has been unjustifiably and wrongfully reduced, the Consumer Forums are not debarred from taking cognizance of the same. Merely because the complainant due to ignorance has failed to make a specific prayer for a relief in his petition will be no bar to the Consumer Forums taking cognizance of the same smo motu." Relying on the aforesaid decision it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that even in the absence of any pleading, the complainant is entitled to a direction for payment of compensation. But in the instant case, there is neither pleading nor evidence to show that the complainant suffered any loss or any ill-health or inconvenience. The quantum of damages have to be proved even in the proceedings before the District Forum. In the instant case there is neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence to prove any damages. But since there is illegal demand for payment of arrears, and there was disconnection of power supply the complainant might have suffered inconvenience for which he is entitled to a nominal damages of Rs. 1,000/-. In the result, the appeal FA 1097/96 is dismissed and the appeal FA 3/97 is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant towards nominal damages. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. F.A. 1097/96 dismissed. F.A. 3/1997 allowed.