BANTA SINGH vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

IT is an appeal against the order dated 7.10.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the appellant Banta Singh, complainant before the District Forum (hereinafter called the complainant) had filed an application under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the effect that he had filed Complaint No. 228 on 24.5.1995 against the respondent Punjab State Electricity Board opposite party (hereinafter called the O.P.) before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act against disconnection of electric supply and for claiming compensation etc. with regard to electric connection Account No. SP-26 and the said complaint was accepted vide order dated 19.4.1996 by the District Forum vide which the opposite party was directed to restore the electric connection of the complainant immediately if not restored earlier and to pay compensation of Rs. 100/- per day with effect from 9.5.1995 till the date of restoration. However, the District Forum had not determined the date of restoration of the electric connection of the complainant. The complainant had filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the Commission). The Commission vide its order dated 29.8.1996 had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 150/- per day with the observation that the date of re-connection of the electric connection was not available on the record of the District Forum so the date would be determined during execution proceedings. The complainant prayed that the date of restoration of the electric connection be determined and compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day till the date of reconnection be got realised and paid to the complainant. The opposite party in its reply stated that electric connection of the complainant was restored on 29.6.1995 vide RCO No. 63/14232 dated 20.6.1995 and the compensation as awarded by the District Forum duly complied with and cheque No. 046146 dated 31.5.1996 amounting to Rs. 6,100/- was presented before the District Forum to be given to the complainant. The amount of compensation enhanced by the Commission was also deposited vide cheque No. 892849 dated 14.11.1996 amounting to Rs. 3,050/-. It was further submitted by the opposite party that the amount so deposited by the opposite party was Rs. 500/- more than actually payable as per order of the District Forum and the State Commission due to clerical mistake. The District Forum after hearing the Counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, dismissed the application. Hence, the appeal.

In our view it should have been treated as revision but in any case we are treating it as an appeal particularly when no question of limitation etc. is involved in this case. In order to prove its case, the opposite party filed the following documents before the District Forum. "(a) Affidavit (Ex. R-1) of Sh. Amrit Kumar Bansal, S.D.O., Sub Division, P.S.E.B., Bhucho Mandi. (b) Photostat copy of RCO No. 63/14232 dated 20.6.1995 (Ex. R-2). (c) Photostat copy of the affidavit filed by J.E. Brij Bhushan (Ex. R-3). (d) Photostat copy of Ex. R-4. (e) Photo copy of letter dated 6.7.1995 of the complainant (Ex. R-5)."

IN the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Amrit Kumar Bansal, it is specifically mentioned that re-connection was effected on 29.6.1995, it has been admitted by the complainant Banta Singh also in his letter written to the opposite party dated 6.7.1995 (Ex. R-5). Para No. 2 of this letter reads as under : "Previously you disconnected the electric connection on 9.5.1995 wrongly, although nothing was due against me. The connection was restored only on 30.6.1995, although I have learnt that R.C.O. No. 64/14932 was issued on 20.6.1995 and a fake entry regarding restoration of the connection has been made by your officials in your records on 27.6.1995. The electric meter is correct and in order and is showing regular and accurate consumption of electricity, but you have been issuing bills on average basis."

As per admission of the complainant his electric connection was restored on 30.6.1995 whereas the contention of the opposite party was that the connection was restored on 29.6.1995 vide R.C.O. No. 63/14232 dated 20.6.1995 (Ex. R-2). Thus as per records copy of R.C.O. No. 63/14232 dated 20.6.1995 (Ex. R-2) and photo copy of the affidavit (Ex. R-3) of Sh. Brij Bhushan, J.E. of the opposite party filed under Section 27 of the Act in which he had stated that he had gone to the premises of the complainant and had restored the electric supply on June 29, 1995, it is clear that electric supply of the complainant was restored on 29.6.1995. The abovesaid documents clearly show that the electric supply of the complainant was restored on 29.6.1995. We thus do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

THE learned Counsel submits that the letter Ex. R-5 has been secured by the opposite party fraudulently from the complainant. First of all we do not find such evidence that the letter was secured fraudulently by the opposite party from the complainant. But even if this assertion of the learned Counsel is taken as correct then the complainant has failed to prove fraud on the part of the opposite party before the District Forum. THE complainant had the liberty to take the matter to the Civil Court to prove fraud on the part of the opposite party. In these circumstances, we have no option except to dismiss the appeal which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.