Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs INDRA DEV CHOUDHARY

-THIS appeal under Section 15 of C. P. Act, 1986 is directed against the impugned order dated 29. 10. 2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the ''district Forum'' for short) in complaint No. 316/2006, whereby the complaint was allowed.

BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant No. 1 is occupying a shop on rent from the owner Shri Gore Lal Sahu and electricity connection is in the name of the owner. The complainant No. 1 had purchased an A. C. on 24. 4. 2006. On next day, while the A. C. was being fitted, the mechanic who was fitting the A. C. went for taking his meals and while the A. C. was not yet connected, investigation team from the O. P came to the premises of the complainants. As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant repeatedly told them that the A. C. only fitted to the wall but was yet to be connected with electricity and showed the receipt by means of which the A. C. was purchased but the opposite party made a false case under Section 135 of Electricity Act. The complainants made a complaint in this regard on 27. 4. 2006 to the Superintending Engineer, C. S. E. B. , Raipur. It was further averred in the complaint that the opposite party issued a demand note for a sum of Rs. 63,925 though the A. C. was not yet connected to the electric line. It was further averred that Section 135 of Electricity Act is not applicable in this matter and the complaint lodged by the opposite party with Amanaka Police Station, Raipur is also false and baseless. It was further averred that the complainant No. 1 deposited a sum of Rs. 22,000 on 28. 4. 2006 with regard to the demand note. It was prayed in the complaint that the demand note may be set aside and amount deposited by the complainant No. 1 towards said demand note may be adjusted in the subsequent bills. It was further averred that the opposite party threatened to disconnect the electricity connection hence complainant No. 1 deposited the sum of Rs. 22,400 vide cheque No. 719747 drawn on Dena Bank and thereafter again a sum of Rs. 20,175 was deposited on 13. 10. 2006. Hence a total sum of Rs. 64,575 was charged by the opposite parties by demand notes and hence committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The opposite party resisted the claim and averred in written version that only Shri Gore Lal Sahu is consumer of opposite party, as the connection was in his name, hence he was responsible for any irregularity with reference to the electricity connection. It was stated in the written verson that Shri Gore Lal Sahu never gave any information regarding purchase of A. C. or any dispute with regard to electricity connection. It was further averred that Shri Indradev Chaudhary never gave any intimation to the O. P regarding his intention to instal an A. C. The A. C was directly connected, as the electricity connection in name of Shri Gore Lal Sahu, was a single phase connection and 1. 5 ton A. C. of 2250 Watt could not be run on the single phase connection. Hence Shri Indradev Chaudhary got it connected to the line by-passing the meter. It was further averred that the averment of the complainant that the A. C was only fitted to the wall but not connected with electricity is totally false and baseless. It was further averred that during inspection, the Officer had switched on the A. C. in presence of Shri Santosh Kumar, representative of the complainant. Hence it was found that there was theft of energy and consequently demand note was issued. In such cases, the opposite party cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties to cancel demand note dated 27. 4. 2006 for a sum of Rs. 63,925 and to adjust the amount received from the complainant in his future bill and also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 towards cost of proceeding.

FINAL arguments heard. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum has failed to apreciate the material on record and has passed an erroneous order. He further submitted that the District Forum has erred in holding the complainant to be a consumer of the opposite parties. It was further submitted by the appellant''s Counsel that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant has failed to seek any permission for installing the A. C. and have also failed to submit any application for enhancing permissible connected load. He further submitted that as the complainant had directly connected A. C. by-passing meter, such connection amounted to theft of energy, hence District Forum does not have jurisdiction to decide the matter. He submitted that the order passed by the District Forum may be set aside and this appeal may be allowed.

ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents, reiterated the stand taken before the District Forum and submitted that the order passed by the District Forum is a speaking order, passed after considering all the material on record and hence no inference with the impugned order is necessary. He prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. It is noted that the document Annexure A-2 is Panchnama recorded by OPs at the time of investigation. It appears from the said document that sanctioned load was 340 Watts whereas the connected load was found to be 3240 Watts i. e. much more than the sanctioned load and also that the A. C. was connected directly to the line by-passing the meter. It is noted that one Shri Santosh Kumar has signed the document as representative of the consumer. It further appears that on 27. 4. 2006, the complainants had submitted letter to the Additional Engineer, of the O. P. whereby it was stated that the A. C. was purchased on 24. 4. 2006 and the same was fitted but was not switched on. Only a wire for testing the A. C. was taken out but testing also was not carried out. However, subsequently the stand was changed by the complainants and it was mentioned in the complaint that while fitting A. C. the mechanic had gone to take his meals and A. C. was not fitted nor it was connected. The earlier letter dated 27. 4. 2006, is Annexure A-3 and it appears from the said documents that the A. C. was fitted and it was to be tested. Testing is possible only after fitting. In view of Panchanama Annexure A-2, prepared by responsible Officer of OP cannot be discarded simply on the allegation made in complaint and the affidavit filed in support thereof when such allegations are not in consonance with earlier stand taken by the complainants. It is further noted that not only Panchanama was prepared but FIR with the Police was also lodged regarding theft of energy by the complainant. In the circumstances the order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. In view of the fact that the connected load of the complainant exceeded the sanctioned load even in''prior to connecting A. C. , it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to take necessary steps for getting the sanctioned load enhanced after intimating the OPs regarding his intention to install an A. C. Such installation without knowledge of the OP may result in causing the problem of low voltage thereby causing inconvenience to several other consumer. There is no material to suggest or to indicate that complainant had taken initiative in this regard. Further in the matter in hand the A. C. appears to have been connected directly to the line after by-passing the meter. In the circumstances, the issuance of additional bill by the opposite parties can not be termed to be deficiency in service. Hence, this appeal is allowed. Order of the District Consumer Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. Appeal allowed.