ATMA STEELS LIMITED vs U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS complaint was filed by the complainant for recovery of Rs. 18,26,755/-as compensation with 18% per annum interest. The facts of the case, stated in brief, are that the complainant is a consumer of electricity supplied by U.P. State Electricity Board at Ghaziabad. The capacity of the load is 4635 KVA. THIS connection was released after completion of all the formalities in execution of agreement and other documents. An independent feeder was laid for supply of electricity to the complainant. The applicant is entitled to use electricity for 24 hours a day because he is governed in the category of continuous process industry of HVII consumer and is paying higher rate of electricity charges.

A dispute arose between the parties in the month of January, 1993 when a metering dispute took place. The applicant had to file a suit in the Civil Court which was later on withdrawn by the claimant and after that a statutory reference was preferred before the Chief Electricity Inspector, U.P. Government, Lucknow under the mandatory provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. The Chief Electrical Inspector, U.P. Government did not pass any interim order staying the demand of assessment bill amount. Hence the complainant had to file a writ petition before the Hon''ble High Court where the complainant was directed to deposit half of the disputed amount. The amount of Rs. 28,88,945.16 was paid by the complainant to the Electricity Board. The rest of the amount was to be governed by the decision of the appeal as it was in dispute. Finally this writ petition was disposed of with the directions that the Chief Electrical Inspector should dispose of the reference as early as possible. By order dated 15.2.1994 the reference was decided by the Chief Electrical Inspector and the disputed assessment bill was set aside. The decision is binding on the opposite parties. Copy of this order is Annexure II to the complaint. After the decision of the Chief Electrical Inspector the complainant made a representation to the authorities of Electricity Board for refund of half of disputed amount of the disputed assessment, but the refund has not been made for which a second writ petition had to be filed before the High Court. The Hon''ble High Court by order dated 30th May, 1994 permitted the Electricity Board for making adjustment of the above amount towards the current electiricty bill. This decision of the High Court was also not honoured by the Electricity Department, and therefore an application had to be moved in the High Court and a direction was issued to the claimant for furnishing a Bank Guarantee to the satisfaction of the Executive Engineer concerned, and the Bank guarantee was furnished along with copy of the interim order dated 30.5.1994 and 23.8.1994 and a copy of Bank guarantee are filed as Annexures IV, V and VI.

The Electricity Board has disconnected the electricity of the complainant in an illegal and arbitrary manner in disobeyance of the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector.

AFTER the disconnection, the complainant informed the higher authorities of the Electricity Board for restoration of electric connection but nothing was done. Thereafter applicant had to again approach the Hon''ble High Court and the Hon''ble High Court had directed the authorities concerned to direct the opposite parties to connect the electric connection within next 24 hours. The electric connection was restored on 2.9.1994 at 2.10 a.m. This paper has been filed on record. On 3.9.1994 the application for contempt of Court was moved and a prayer was made for personal presence of the opposite parties 1 and 2. A show- cause was issued by the Hon''ble High Court and the High Court also passed order for personal presence of opposite parties 1 and 3 to show as to why the orders of the Hon''ble High Court was not complied with. The complainant has claimed damages of Rs. 18,26,755/-. Notices were sent to the opposite parties but no written statement was filed and they also did not appear on the date fixed. In spite of service of notice by registered post, registered cover was not received after service. Hence the service was deemed to be sufficient and the case proceeded ex parte against the opposite party.

WE have perused evidence on record. It may be mentioned that this complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite party. Several dates were fixed in this case since it was instituted in 1994, but till this date none of the parties has come forward to prove their respective case. Therefore in absence of parties we have scrutinised file and cannot come to the conclusion as to whether there was any deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite parties in disconnection of supply of electricity. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment, the complainant had not appeared before the Commission on the date fixed after issuance of notice to the opposite party. As a matter of fact the notices to the opposite parties were also issued but they have absented themselves. In order to prove the case of a party, evidence has to be tendered. Under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the evidence of the party in support of its contention is to be filed in the form of affidavit. None of the parties have filed any evidence in the form of affidavit in order to show that the claim of the party concerned is correct or not. Unless the allegations of the complainant are supported by an affidavit on record, no reliance can be placed on allegation of complainant. The complainant should have filed an affidavit in support of his complaint. As there is no evidence on record to prove the allegations contained in the complaint, we have no other option but to dismiss the complaint for want of proof. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed for want of evidence. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. No order as to the cost of proceedings. Let copy be made available .to the parties concerned as per rules. Complaint dismissed.