HVPN vs RAM PAL ALIAS RAM PHAL

THIS appeal has been directed by opposite parties against order dated 19.11.1999 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind, Haryana (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which the complaint of respondent Ram Pal @ Ram Phal (complainant) was accepted and the amount of Rs. 3,661 payable on 16/17.4.1996 was quashed and the appellants were directed to restore the electric supply to the respondent within 60 days from the date of order.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the respondent is consumer of the appellants with respect to tubewell electricity connection bearing account No. KG-5-1. The respondent had been paying an amount of Rs. 488 per month at flat rate and he had paid the bill for the month of August,1995 amounting to Rs. 488 against receipt. It was averred that fields of whole of the area were flooded with water due to extraordinary flood in the area and as such respondent submitted an application dated 7.9.1995 for temporary disconnection of the electricity supply to his tubewell and consequently electric supply was disconnected but still a bill was sent to him for Rs. 3,661. The said bill was factually wrong as he had not consumed the electricity. He asked the appellants to withdraw that bill but they refused to do so.

Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

APPELLANTS contested the complaint. They stated that the connection to the tubewell of the respondent was disconnected due to non-payment and not as per request of the respondent. In fact, he did not make any such request . According to them, PDCO No. 222/76 dated 27.2.1996 was issued for permanent disconnection of the electric supply to the respondent and then it was disconnected. They prayed that the complaint should be dismissed. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.

AFTER hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 19.11.1999 accepted the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties have filed the present appeal. We have heard Mr. Sanjay ,LDC on behalf of appellants, Mr. Vikas Chatrath ,Counsel for respondent and carefully gone through the file.

IT is an admitted fact that respondent (complainant) is consumer of appellants with respect to electricity meter A/c No. KG-5-1 as he had installed one tubewell which was operated with electric energy. He used to pay Rs. 488 per month at flat rate as charges for the electricity consumed. The case of respondent is that there were extraordinary floods in the area in September, 95 and he had submitted an application dated 7.9.1995 for temporary disconnection of the electricity supply and on his request the electric supply was disconnected but later on he received bill for Rs. 3,661 which was illegal as the connection had already been disconnected.

A perusal of the record shows that two applications were submitted on 7.9.1995-one by the respondent and another by Satbir Singh to SDO and prayed that the electric supply to the tubewell of respondent should be disconnected temporarily because whole of the area had been flooded with water. There is report of the official concerned on the said application according to which electric supply had already been disconnected but the report of said official did not bear any date except one date 5.4.1996. The District Consumer Forum had asked the SDO as well as concerned Commercial Assistant of the electricity department to come present for certain clarification but they failed to turn up. No documentary evidence has been produced by the appellants to prove that the electric connection to the tubewell was disconnected on account of non-payment of the previous bills. Even the record of TDCO and PDCO was not submitted. Therefore, it is not proved on file that the electric connection was disconnected on account of failure of the respondent to pay bills but it appears to be disconnected on the request of the respondent and as such after disconnection, it was not proper to send bill for Rs. 3,661 payable on 16/17.4.1996 which was illegal. The same has been rightly quashed by the District Consumer Forum and the appellants had been rightly directed to restore the electricity connection to the tubewell within a period of 60 days from the passing of order. The order is perfectly legal and there is no illegality in it. Consequently, there is no force in the appeal and as such the same is dismissed.

Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.