MUKESH NARAIN vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R.S.E.B.

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of District Forum, Sawaimadhopur dated 20.8.93 in Complaint Case No. 56 of 1992.

FACTS leading to the filing of the appeal are that the complainants - appellants have a flour mill in village Shyampura in District Sawaimadhopur and they have a power connection to the said flour mill since the year 1983. On 8th January, 1990 the transformer installed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board in Village Shyampura was burnt and on account of this reason there was no power supply to the complainants for three months upto March, 1990. The complainants could not use their power connection for these months. Despite that, it was alleged by the complainants, the Rajasthan State Electricity Board illegally sent power consumption bill for the months from January, 1990 to March, 1990 amounting to Rs. 1,254.00. The complainants made grievance regarding this to the Executive Engineer but despite that the power consumption bills continued to be sent to the complainants. On 10th May, 1991 the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Sawaimadhopur came to the premises of the complainants to disconnect the power connection and they were required to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,000/- on the spot after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,254/- with respect to the bill from January, 1990 to March, 1990. An amount of Rs. 25/- was got deposited from the complainants for. the settlement of the dispute from the Settlement Committee. Despite deposit of the amount of Rs. 25/-, no action was taken. On 31.7.90 the power connection to the flour mill of the appellants was disconnected. Inspite of the disconnection of the power connection, the power consumption bills had continued to be sent to the complainants and a total amount of Rs. 4,754/- had been shown outstanding against the complainants upto January, 1992. Previously the complainants had filed the complaint before the District Forum, Sawaimadhopur on 3.2.92 which was dismissed in default and, therefore, the present complaint was filed by them on 20.2.92. The complainants prayed that the power consumption bills for the amount of Rs. 1,254/-in respect of the months from January, 1990 to March, 1990 may be quashed and the complainants be awarded compensation of Rs. 2,700/- on account of non-supply of power during the said three months on account of burning of the transformer. They further claimed a compensation of Rs. 6,000/- arising from wrongful disconnection of the power supply.

Upon reference being made, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed its version on 30.10.92. It was admitted in the version that the complainants had the power connection since the year 1983. It was also admitted that the transformer had brunt in the month of January, 1990. When new transformer was available, it was installed and the power supply line was restored. It was stated that there was no fault of the electricity department. Regarding the disconnection of the power supply, it was pleaded mat as the complainants did not deposit the outstanding amounts of the bills, the power supply was rightly disconnected. It was also stated that the electricity department was entitled to charge the consumption charges on the basis of minimum charges. Suffering of loss by the complainants was denied. It was also pleaded that the electricity connection had been taken by the complainants for commercial purpose i.e. for flour mill and, therefore, the complainants were not consumers.

THE District Forum accepted the version of the complainants that the transformer was burnt on 8th January, 1990 and a new transformer was installed in March, 1990. It was held that during this period the complainants did not receive power supply. THE District Forum, therefore, held that the Opposite Parties are not entitled to charge Rs. 1,254/- from the complainants in respect of power consumption charges, from January, 1990 to March, 1990. THE District Forum awarded a compensation of Rs. 300/- to the complainants, Aggrieved from the order of the District Forum on the ground that it did not award to the complainants all the reliefs claimed by them in their complaint, the complainants have filed this appeal. It may be mentioned that on the behalf of the respondents appearance was made by Shri. N.C Goyal, Advocate on 28th March, 1994 and also on 7th April, 1994 and 8th April, 94. However, on 28th June, 1994 when the appeal was considered for arguments, respondents Counsel was not present. We, therefore, heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

AS already stated, it is not in dispute that the transformer had burnt in January, 1990. The complainants had alleged in the complaint that new transformer was installed in March, 1990. The Opposite Parties in their version did not mention the date or month when the new transformer was installed. The District Forum rightly accepted the version of the complainants that the new transformer was installed in March, 1990. It had, therefore, held that the Opposite Parties-respondents were not entitled to charge Rs. 1,254/- with respect to the months of January, February and March, 1990 during which there was no power supply. It is not a dispute between the parties that the Opposite Parties had disconnected the power supply on 31st July, 1991. This complaint was filed by the complainants on 20.2.92. It is dear from the power consumption bills that despite disconnection of the power connection on 31st July, 1991, the opposite parties continued to send power consumption bills to the complainants payable on 21st July, 1991 to 21st February, 1982. At best it can be said the opposite parties could send the power bill upto 31st July, 1991. After disconnection of the power connection, the opposite parties could not send any power consumption bills to the complainants for the simple reason that the power connection had already been disconnected. The only thing stated by the Opposite Parties in their version was that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was entitled to realise the minimum charges from the complainants. How could the minimum charges be recovered with respect of the period after disconnection of the power supply. As already stated, even after the disconnection of the power supply, the Opposite Parties had send power consumption bills even upto February, 1992 and in all the bills, they had charged amounts of Rs. 301.80, 305.60 and Rs. 318.00 as minimum charges. Nothing could be charged for monthly consumption when the power connection had already been disconnected by the Opposite Parties. Really it was not only deficiency in service to send bills for power consumption even after the disconnection, but also an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. It may be stated that the complainants have pleaded in the complaint that on 10th May, 1991, they had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,000/- in respect of arrears of power consumption bills after not including the above amount of Rs. 1,254/-. The complainant did not produce any receipt to show the payment of Rs. 3,000/- on 10.5.1991 as alleged by them. It appears that upto 10.5.91, there were arrears of power consumption charges, against the complainants. They have not proved that they had deposited the amount of Rs. 3,000/- as stated by them. The power connection was disconnected for the reason that the complainants had not deposited the power consumption bills after the transformer was installed in March, 90 till May, 1991 and that was the reason that the Opposite parties disconnected the power connection on 31st July, 1991. It is important to note that in the complaint, the complainant have not prayed for the restoration of the power connection. The District Forum awarded Rs. 300/- as compensation for non-supply of power connection due to the burning of the transformer. The complainant had prayed for Rs. 2,700/- as compensation. In our view the complainants ought to have been granted a compensation of at least, Rs. 1,000/- instead of Rs. 300/-. The next claim of the complainants is for Rs. 6,000/- as compensation in respect of the loss suffered by him due to disconnection of the power supply since 31st July, 1991. As we have held that the complainants did not establish by producing any receipt that they had deposited the power consumption bills from April, 1990 till May, 1991 and we have held that the disconnection was not improper as the same had been made on account of non-payment of the power consumption bills for the above period the Opposite Parties cannot be saddled with compensation in respect of the period after disconnection for the reason that disconnection cannot be said to be illegal or improper.

WE, therefore, only partly allow this appeal and instead of Rs. 300/- awarded as compensation by the District Forum, Sawaimadhopur, we award a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant, on account of the loss suffered by them due to non replacement of the burnt transformer for three long months. No further compensation can be awarded to the complainant for the alleged loss after disconnection because we have held that the disconnection was not illegal. Appeal partly allowed.