M P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs VINOD KUMAR

-BOTH these Appeals No. 1107/2005 by opposite party No. 1136/2005 by complainant heard as connected matters, arise from the order dated 13. 5. 2005 passed in C. C. No. 103/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajgarh, quashing all the electricity bills issued after March 2000, but with liberty to the opposite party-Board to issue fresh corrected bills after taking into consideration the objections raised by complainant-consumer. A further sum of Rs. 5,000, besides cost of Rs. 500, has been awarded by way of compensation for wrongful disconnection of complainant''s power supply.

COMPLAINANT had industrial power connection from opposite party-Board for his Dal Mill. It appears that the complainant was not able to operate his Dal Mill and not consuming the power and so he was being charged on the basis of minimum consumption. The dispute initially started with regard to the rate at which the complainant was being charged on minimum consumption basis. However, this dispute which continued till February, 2000 was resolved in March 2000 when as against a total demand of Rs. 10,023 a credit of Rs. 3,960 was given to him leaving the balance amount Rs. 6,063 which the complainant paid on 31st March, 2000. However in the bill issued on 18. 4. 2000 the said amount of Rs. 3,960 which was earlier given credit, was again shown as due and after levying surcharge a fresh bill for a total sum of Rs. 5,209 was raised against the complainant. On his representation, this amount was reduced to Rs. 1,249 which the complainant paid on 23. 4. 2000. But, again in the bill of the month of May 2000 a sum of Rs. 4,022 was shown as previous arrears and a total bill of Rs. 5,510 was raised against him. However, the mistake was later on rectified and the demand was reduced to Rs. 1,128 which was paid by the complainant on 12. 6. 2000. The dispute did not end as the opposite party-Board again in the bill dated 24. 6. 2000 added the amount of this previous bill as arrears, thus making a demand of Rs. 6,436. It appears that the complainant thereafter stopped making any payment and as such his electric connection was severed. According to the complainant it was disconnected in June 2000, while according to the opposite party-Board it was disconnected temporarily in November 2000. It appears that the bills were thereafter raised on the basis of minimum consumption until February 2002 when the power supply of the complainant was disconnected permanently. However, in the meantime the complainant approached the Forum below and filed complaint against opposite party-Board on 8. 10. 2001 claiming compensation Rs. 4,70,000 for wrongful disconnection and consequent loss in his business. The opposite party-Board resisted the complaint and it was contended that the complainant had been a regular defaulter and that his power supply was disconnected on account of his failure to pay the electricity charges. The Forum below allowed the complaint in part and passed the order as aforesaid, thus giving rise to these appeals. We have heard Mr. Deepesh Joshi, learned Counsel for complainant and Mr. S. N. Rao, learned Counsel for opposite party.

The deficiency on the part of opposite party-Board was writ large. The factual matrix already stated hereinabove and as unfolded by the documentary evidence on record, clearly revealed that concerning officers of the opposite party-Board had been acting in the most arbitrary manner. Firstly, the bills raised on minimum consumption basis upto March 2000 were faulty and that was the reason that the Board itself in the month of March gave a credit of Rs. 3,960 to the complainant and reduced the demand from Rs. 10,823 to Rs. 6,063 only. However, despite the complainant making payment of this amount on March 31, 2000 the said amount of Rs. 3,960 was again shown due in the bill raised in the month of April 2000. The folly continued till June 2000 inasmuch as in every subsequent bill some previous dues which in fact did not exist, were shown due from the complainant and on his stopping payment his power supply was disconnected, firstly temporarily and then permanently. Needless to say that complainant was justified in stopping payment of this amount demanded wrongly from him. It is significant to note that after temporary disconnection be it in June 2000 as claimed by the complainant or in November 2000 as contended by the opposite party, the Board continued to raise bills on minimum consumption basis for nearly one and half years i. e. , upto February 2002 ignoring their own rule that after temporary disconnection, the Board would be entitled to charge on the basis of minimum consumption only for six months at the expiry of which period, the connection shall be deemed to have been severed permanently.

IT will be thus seen that not only the faulty bills were raised but the electric supply of the complainant was disconnected without any just and sufficient reason. Under the circumstance, not only the bills raised after June 2000 were liable to be quashed, the complainant was entitled to get his power supply restored and compensated duly for the unauthorised act of commissions and omissions on the part of the officers of the Board. As regards the compensation, although the complainant claims to have suffered loss in his business, but as per his own showing his industry was closed right from beginning and he had been paying electricity charges of minimum consumption basis. Even otherwise there is no evidence to assess the actual loss suffered by the complainant on account of unauthorised disconnection of his power supply. In our considered view, general damages of Rs. 10,000 will meet the ends of justice.

WE accordingly dismiss Appeal No. 1107/2005 filed by opposite party-Board and allow in part Appeal No. 1136/2005 of the complainant and substitute/modify the order of the Forum below as follows : (1) That the opposite party-Board shall immediately restore the electric connection of the complainant without charging any fees for that. (2) That the bills raised after June 2000 i. e. , after complainant made the payment of Rs. 1,128 on 12. 6. 2000, shall stand quashed. (3) That opposite party-Board shall pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the complainant which shall also include the cost of litigation of both the Fora.

This order be retained in Appeal No. 1107/2005 and copy of the same be placed in record of Appeal No. 1136/2005. Appeal No. 1107/2005 dismissed. Appeal No. 1136/2005 partly allowed.