M.P.ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Amar Singh

THIS appeal has arisen from order dated 22.4.1997 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Indore in Complaint No. 982/92.

THE facts in brief are that respondent is an Advocate and has electric supply connection for his Chambers, where he works in the evening. In his complaint before the District Forum, he alleged that electric supply for his Chambers was disconnected for non-payment of bill, although he had made the payment on due date that is 10.3.1992. His electric supply connection was restored on 17.3.1992. Respondent prayed for Rs. 8,000/- loss and Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony. In their reply before the District Forum the appellants stated that electric supply was temporarily stopped on 16.3.1992 because there was no evidence on that day that the respondent had made payment of Rs. 44/-, the bill for January. Appellants averred that they were justified in temporary stoppage for non-payment of bill. THEy also affirmed that electric supply was immediately restored without any charge as soon as it was known that bill had been paid. THEy denied the allegation that Rs. 30/- were recovered from the respondent and no receipt was given. District Forum after hearing both parties held that appellant had committed deficiency in service and awarded Rs. 500/- for mental torture.

In this appeal, appellants have stated that respondent did not make the payment of bill either in January or February and made payment only on 10.3.1992. Also when the lineman of appellant went to his Chamber respondent was not present and also no one produced the voucher indicating the payment. In these circumstances if the electric supply was stopped temporarily, respondent himself was responsible for his discomfiture. Appellant also averred that no notice is required when the electric supply is temporarily stopped for non-payment of bill. It is necessary for permanent disconnection.

WE have heard both the parties and have also perused the record. Perusal of the complaint filed by respondent revealed that his electric bills were collected in a shop on ground floor. The shop remained closed most of the time and the shop owner forgot to give the electricity bill to respondent. This narration shows that respondent by his own admission is a most disorganised person and it is quite easy to believe that respondent did not get bill for month of January of Rs. 44/- and hence never paid it. Respondent also mentions in his complaint that he received bill for February on 10.3.1992 and paid it the same day. This delay in getting bill is because of arrangements made by respondent himself and he cannot blame anyone else. The amount shown due in bill was Rs. 44/- which was not paid. Average bill when meter was not read was Rs. 17/-. It is, therefore, easy to conclude that there is virtually no consumption of electricity. It is surprising to find respondent claiming loss in legal practice as Rs. 8,000/- for one night and Rs. 5,000/- for mental torture. As rightly pointed out by the District Forum, the respondent (complainant in District Forum) failed to give any evidence, oral or documentary to support his claim and hence District Forum has rightly rejected the claim. 5. WE shall now consider whether award of Rs. 500/- for mental torture and Rs. 200/- cost of proceedings, has any justification. As urged by the appellant, respondent did not pay his bills in time. In fact he never made any arrangement to receive the bills in time. As such he has not come before the Forum with clean hands. In addition, he made a false statement before District Forum that he had to pay Rs. 80/- for reconnection for which no receipt was given. He could give no evidence in support of this allegation. Taking the entire testimony as a whole we find it difficult to believe anything mentioned by the respondent. WE are, therefore, of the opinion that award of Rs. 500/- was only proportional to an utterly exaggerated claim of Rs. 5,000/- by respondent/ complainant. Having made our observations regarding the respondent, we must observe that appellant ought to have verified about payment of bill between 10/3 and 16/3 before stoppage of electricity and hence we agree with District Forum that there is deficiency in service on the part of appellant. Considering the evidence on record as a whole, we are of the opinion that Rs. 200/- for mental agony will meet the ends of justice. There is of course no justification for award of cost of proceedings and hence we do not agree with this part of judgment of District Forum. In the context of discussion in preceding paragraphs, the appeal is partly successful and is allowed to the extent shown in following order, which modifies the order dated 22.4.1997 of District Forum, Indore: "Opposite party/appellant shall pay Rs. 200/- as compensation for mental agony within one month of the order." No order as to costs of this appeal. Appeal partly allowed. _______________