NIRANJAN vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (HYDEL)

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.3.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Etah in Complaint Case No. 37/1994. The facts of the case are as follows.

THE complainants S/Sri Niranjan, Nathu Ram, Ram Swarup, Lala Ram, Surajpal, Vijaya Pal Singh and Gopi Ram have together filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum alleging that they had applied for electricity connection for domestic consumption after completing all the formalities including the deposit of the amount required by the opposite party. Inspection of the site was also done by the officials of the Electricity Board. THE opposite party was approached a number of times but the connection was not provided. Complaint to this effect was also made to the District Magistrate on 7.12.1993. Instead bills of electricity consumption were raised against them which resulted into mental torture to the complainants. Each one of the complainants have prayed for award of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and quashing the amount of the bills raised. In the written version before the District Consumer Forum, the U.P. State Electricity Board, opposite party, had admitted that the complainants had applied for electric connections and after inspection of the site, connections were provided to the complainants. On the basis of the orders passed by the District Magistrate earth wire was also installed in respect of each connections. An assurance was given to the complainants that in the absence of meters direct connections could be provided to them, and therefore, direct connections were given and bills were accordingly raised. However, the payment was never made by the complainants. Other residents of the vicinity have installed the meters and are using electricity. The complaint has been filed with the intention of avoiding the payment which is outstanding against the consumption of electricity given to the complainants by direct connections. The parties filed their evidence before the District Consumer Forum. The District Forum also appointed one of its Member, Smt. Pushpa Upadhyay to inspect the spot and submit the report. On inspection she found that there were electric poles on the spot but the lines to the individual connections had not been laid and connections have not been given from any other line either to the complainants.

The opposite parties have also stated before the District Forum that the complainants had since got the meters and the same have been checked and installed in their respective residences. It was before the inspection of the Member of the Forum that the wires and the meters were removed by the complainants.

AFTER hearing both the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the matter appears to be that of a ''fraud'' and, therefore, dismissed the complaint, being not maintainable. Aggrieved of the order of the learned District Forum, the complainants have come in this appeal.

IN the memo of appeal the appellants have stated that the respondents submitted forged documents before the Forum in which it was alleged that the meters were installed by the appellants. The fact of the matter was that one of the Members of the Forum had inspected the site and found that the electric line had not been laid from the poles to the respective residences of the complainants and, therefore, there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the two parties. The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the finding of the learned District Forum that it was a complicated case and as such not maintainable in the District Forum was not correct because no complication in the case was involved. One of the Members of the District Forum had gone on the spot and found that the lines had not been laid from the poles to the respective houses of the appellants. The learned Counsel has also argued that the question of installation of meter is not involved in this case as the electricity was to be given direct from the pole and since the electricity was not given, there was no question of raising a bill for use of power which really was not used and inspite of this the opposite parties have continued to take steps to recover the so-called dues as arrears of land revenue. Therefore, the bills sent by the opposite parties should be quashed as no line was given to the complainants. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the Member of the Forum inspected the site on 22.1.1996 much after the connections were withdrawn as by that time the complainants had become the defaulters of dues and the lines were disconnected. This fact was not taken into consideration by the Member in her report. It was also argued by him that the payment of bill had not been made by the complainants and the other residents of the same area are using electricity by installing their own meters. We have gone through the judgment and order alongwith report of the Member/Commissioner. The copies of affidavit filed by both the sides before the District Consumer Forum have also been perused. The facts as they appear from perusal of records are that the complainants had applied for electricity connections and the complainants were allowed to use the electricity by direct connections. When the bills were raised, objections were made by the complainants and the payment was also not made. The complainants were, therefore, advised by the opposite parties to instal the meters, but since the complainants did not pay the outstanding amounts due against each one of them, installation of meters did not matter and the electricity connections were discontinued.

IN the written statement (para 4), the opposite party had stated that according to the rules of the Electricity Board, direct connections can be provided and as per rules the billing of direct connections is charged. Therefore, it appears that the bills charged were against the direct connections and the payment was not made and the Board took steps to recover the outstanding amount as arrears of land revenue. It appears that the meters were later on installed by the complainants but since the payment had not been made, the Board was within its right not to give reconnection for default of earlier payment. There does not appear to be any fault as the details of meters show different particulars and the signatures of the respective complainants are also there in each meter inspection report, but at the same time it is not necessary to consider the meter installation issue. IN the present case the simple matter is that the connections were cut off for non-payment of the electricity dues for using electricity by direct connection. The Commissioner appointed by the Forum has inspected the spot much later and by that time the connections had been cut off. We, therefore, do not find any deficiency on behalf of the Electricity Board. The District Consumer Forum had not taken into consideration this simple aspect of the matter which was vital for the decision of the case. Therefore, the finding of the District Consumer Forum that the case involved allegations of fraud and was a complicated one and, therefore, not maintainable was not based on logical reasons and the same is liable to be set aside. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The judgment and order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. The appeal is decided accordingly. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.