EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION DIVN. vs RANVEER SINGH

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.7.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Mainpuri in Complaint Case No. 14/1992 (wrongly mentioned as No. 41/1992 as disclosed as in the memo of appeal).

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant Ranvir Singh is the Managing Director of a cinema hall. He applied for an electric connection. He deposited necessary amount for electricity connection. After getting the power connection from the opposite parties, the bills for consumption which he received was paid to the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the opposite parties are duty bound to supply electric energy and also supply correct bills for the consumption of electricity. A contract was entered between the parties. THE opposite parties are careless in the matter of bills of electricity consumed. Inspite of several requests to opposite party No. 1, U.P. State Electricity Board, the staff of opposite party No. 1 failed to collect the correct units of electricity consumed through meter. Excessive billing was done. THE complainant paid bills upto October 89 but thereafter he applied for correction of bill pertaining to period 16.11.89 to 18.12.89. Since no action was taken by the opposite party, he stopped making payment of the above bill. Supply of electricity was illegally disconnected with effect from March 1990. THEreafter a bill, copy of which was enclosed as Annexure A, for Rs. 2,769.10 was shown as outstanding against the complainant. After the disconnection the complainant is liable to pay minimum charges which are Rs. 70/- per month, but the respondent arbitrarily added a sum of Rs. 639/- and have shown an outstanding figure of Rs. 25,426.27 which does not show the correct amount of the electricity consumed. The business of the complainant suffered disruption and he suffered loss on account of this. The complainant is running his Cinema by means of generator after the disconnection of the electricity supply. It is further alleged that the outstanding amount shown by the employees of opposite party No. 4 is Rs.18,777.50 which is neither in accordance with the bill, copy of which is annexed, nor in accordance with the minimum charges. The recovery certificate which has been issued is not correct and coercive action is taken for realization of this amount. It is further alleged that the opposite parties be restrained from not charging the bill. It is further prayed that the electricity be restored to his premises and a correct bill be issued to him.

In the written version the opposite party No. 2, Executive Engineer, UPSEB Distribution Division, Mainpuri has alleged that no prima facie case has been established by the complainant who has not come forward with clean hands. The complaint is barred by Section 287 of ZALR Act. The complaint is also not maintainable under the provisions of Section 4 of U.P. Government Electricity Undertaking (Revenue) Recovery Dues Act. It is also alleged that the complaint is barred by Section 3(5) of U.P. Public Money Recovery Act. It is also alleged that the bills were sent in accordance with the meter readings and when the bills were not paid, the connection was disconnected on 23.4.90. A recovery certificate has also been issued through Collector. The complainant has not written any letter for permanent disconnection and has not paid the disconnection charges of Rs. 250/-. If the complainant wants permanent disconnection, then he must pay this much amount alongwith due amount of Rs. 10,039.20 and 10% collection charges. The complainant has also to pay the minimum charges from the date of disconnection till the date of restoration besides the charges mentioned above.

THE learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties. It also came to the conclusion that the bills which have been sent by the Electricity Department are incorrect as the amount shown in the bill and the amount for which recovery proceedings have been initiated are different. THE bills which have been sent after disconnection are also not correct. Only a sum of Rs. 10,039.20 has been shown as the amount due. THE learned District Forum, therefore, directed that if a sum of Rs. 10,039.20 is deposited by the complainant alongwith Rs. 250/- as reconnection charges, then re-connection shall be made by the Electricity Department to the complainant. If any excess amount has been deposited by the complainant, then the same shall be refundable to the complainant or will be adjusted in the future bills alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Aggrieved of the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party, UPSEB has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum.

MR. Deepak Mehrotra, Counsel for appellant appeared on the date fixed. None was present on behalf of the opposite party/complainant inspite of notice given to him. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the bills upto September, 1989 have been paid by the complainant and thereafter no payment was made. According to learned Counsel all the bills which were sent to the complainant were correct. As the payment was not made, the connection was disconnected on 3.3.1990. According to learned Counsel the minimum charges was Rs. 270/- till August 90 and not Rs. 70/- per month as mentioned by the complainant. According to learned Counsel from September 1990 the minimum charges was Rs. 633/- per month. A perusal of the file will go to show that the learned District Forum has observed in the judgment that the bills which have been issued by the appellant and the amount for which recovery proceedings have been initiated do not tally. According to learned Counsel, the bills which were sent are correct. According to learned Counsel a chart has been filed which shows the correct consumption. On the record there is a chart of the meter reading and the consumption of the electricity by the complainant. Upto March 1992 a sum of Rs. 29,765.20 have been shown as arrears. According to learned Counsel previously the minimum charges were Rs. 270/- per month and not Rs. 70/- per month as alleged. There is no paper on record to show that the minimum charges were Rs. 270/- per month besides the chart which has been filed by the appellant. There must have been a notification issued by the Electricity Department showing that the minimum charges for the relevant period was Rs. 270/- per month. Copy of that notification has not been filed before this Commission. It has further been mentioned that thereafter the minimum charges were fixed at Rs. 630/- per month with effect from September, 90. There is also nothing on record to show that the minimum charges with effect from September, 90 became Rs. 670/- per month. Thus we find that the appellant has failed to show that the minimum charges were those which have been alleged by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Thus, we find that the learned District Forum has correctly appreciated the facts on record and has not committed any mistake. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.