SHRI DEVI SARAN SHARMA vs ASSISTANT ENGINEER, HPSEB

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Bilaspur dated 18.5.96, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been dismissed.

THE complainant has approached the District Forum for quashing the electricity bill amounting to Rs. 1403.70 payable on 21.3.96, in respect of the tube well. According to the complainant against the aforementioned bill, the bill of Rs. 1369.95 has been claimed as arrears. Since the complainant has been paying the bills regularly, there cannot be any question of inclusion of any arrears in the bill. The stand taken by the opposite party is that in February, 1992, the complainant made an application that he may be permitted to run the tube well by means of electric energy for four months i.e. May, June, September and October, 1992 and his connection be treated as seasonal connection. But thereafter he never gave any intimation in writing for subsequent years to treat the connection as seasonal. The opposite party under the mistaken belief that the connection was seasonal had charged the complainant only for the actual consumption of the energy for the subsequent years, but later on when this mistake was realised that the connection cannot be treated as seasonal, the money payable for such connection at the monthly minimum rate was worked out and included as arrears in the bill for the month of April, 1995 and also in subsequent bills.

It is not disputed that the complainant has been paying electric bills raised by the opposite party against him in respect of tubewell upto 1994. However, later on it was realised by the opposite party that the electrical connection given to the complainant for tub-well was seasonal and that he should have been charged only for the actual consumption of the electric energy at the monthly minimum rates as arrears of bills or the period subsequent to 1992. The electric connection of the complainant was abruptly disconnected in 1994, and the arrears of the bill for the subsequent period aforementioned was raised against the complainant. There is further on dispute that any intimation was given by the opposite party to the complainant in 1994 that the seasonal electric connection sanctioned in 1992 cannot be treated as seasonal for the subsequent years and that he has to make a fresh application.

IN such circumstances, it was somewhat natural for the complainant to think that the electric connection sanctioned in 1992 was seasonal not only for 1992 but for subsequent years as well and it is being treated as seasonal connection by the opposite party for the subsequent years. The act of the opposite party in arbitrarily disconnecting the electric connection without notice is clearly in violation of principle of natural justice and therefore has to be struck down. Since the electric disconnection in respect of tube-well to the complainant is illegal, the complainant is entitled to be awarded as a compensation and costs for the loss and injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party. However, we are not awarding any compensation in lieu of arrears bills amounting to Rs. 1,403.70. We therefore, accordingly, waive the aforementioned arrears of bill and the opposite party, Asstt. Engineer shall not be entitled to recover such bill.

IN the light of discussed above, the judgment of the District Forum is set aside and arrears of bills are quashed that the opposite party shall not be entitled to recover the arrears of bills raised by them against the complainant. However, we have no doubt in mind that in case it is required under the law that complainant has to file fresh application for fresh seasonal connection for the year, 1997. They will intimate to the complainant to this effect and the complainant shall make a fresh application for getting electric connection for the subsequent years and the opposite party will sanction such connection according to law. Appeal allowed.