MALEE HORTICULTURE PVT. LTD. vs CHAIRMAN, M.S.E.B.

COMPLAINANT M/s. Malee Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. has filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, Maharashtra State Electricity Board.

FACTS of the case as stated in the complaint are that with a view to develop strawberry plantation complainant acquired over 40 acres of land. For irrigation and other purposes complainant got two electricity connections in October, 1995 and the sanctioned load was 40 HP K.W. After two years on getting the above load, complainant realised that they do not require load of 40 HP K.W. and requested the opposite party in January, 1997 to reduce the load to 15 H.P. This was not done. Again the matter was taken up with the opposite party. Still getting no response, complainant stopped paying bill in respect of one connection, as a result of which the other electric connection of the complainant was also cut off by the opposite party for non-payment of bill. It is the case of the complainant that for want of irrigation, which was to be done with the help of electricity, there was loss to the strawberry crop. It is in these circumstances that complaint was filed in 1999 claiming damages of Rs. 2 crores. Since many documents were in vernacular complainant was advised to get it translated in English. This has not been done during the last four years. Fresh notice was issued. Neither the Counsel nor the complainant appeared on the date of hearing. A Counsel appeared professing himself as proxy Counsel requesting for adjournment. We see no merit in the request. Case has been hanging in this stage for four years, defects have not been removed. It is admitted position that disconnec-tion is on account of non-payment of electricity bills by the complainant. It is by now settled law that user cannot as a matter of right ask for reduction in load and expect the State Electricity Board to obey this command of the complainant in this case. While sanctioning the connection whole question of economics of line laying, transformer and other costs are gone into by the Electricity Board. Only after satisfying them about the economic viability, connection is sanctioned. User has no arbitrary power to unilaterally demand reduction and on not doing so by the opposite party Board, stop paying the Bill. ''No payment - No connection'' is the name of the game. We see no deficiency in service. Complainant had no right to stop paying bills of minimum charges raised by the opposite party. There are also no material on record about the loss of Rs. 2 crores claimed especially relating to loss of income amounting to almost Rs. 1.50 crores. If there is loss, it is on account of complainant''s own doing. If the stakes were so high, it would have been better for the complainant to keep paying the bills and approached appropriate Forum for any relief relating to non-reduction of load. This was not done. This claim, on account of all the reasons mentioned above, lacks merit and cannot be entertained, hence dismissed. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.