U P POWER CORPORATION LTD vs Ram Kishan Rastogi

TWO cross revision petitions (R.P. No.3598/2007 and Rs.3729/2007) have been filed by U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ''Petitioner '') and Ram Kishan Rastogi (hereinafter referred to as the ''Respondent '') being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission in their cross appeals No.2482/2006 and 2166/2006 respectively. Since the facts and the cause of action in both revision petitions are similar and they were disposed of by a single order of the State Commission, we also propose to dispose of these by one common order by taking the facts from R.P. No.3598 of 2007.

THE brief facts of the case according to the Respondent who was the original complainant before the District Forum are that he had taken an electricity connection from Petitioner/Corporation by depositing the required amount which was released to him on 09.12.1980 and for which he regularly deposited the amounts due. On 23.04.1992, the electricity meter of the Respondent got burnt due to fluctuation and therefore, he moved an application for replacement of the same. The meter was checked by the concerned J.E. who confirmed that the meter was burnt and that it should be replaced. However, despite several requests to replace the meter, this was not done and instead, Petitioner/Corporation starting issuing arbitrary and unjustified bills based on imaginary readings since no one had turned up to check the meter reading of the Respondent and therefore, Respondent did not pay any bill after 05.06.1992. On 05.03.1995 without any notice, Petitioner/Corporation suddenly disconnected the electricity supply of the Respondent. According to the Respondent only an amount of Rs.4,600/- was due for the consumption of electricity upto 20.12.1994 vide last bill dated 08.01.1995 of the Petitioner/Corporation. However, after more than 8 years, Petitioner/Corporation again issued and arbitrary and unjustified bill dated 14.10.2003 for 53,993/- showing consumption for the period 30.09.1993 to 14.10.2003 whereas the electricity supply was disconnected on 05.03.1995 and had not been restored. Hence, the question of electricity usage w.e.f. 05.03.1995 did not arise. Despite several requests both written and through personal visits, the bill was not revised or rectified nor was the meter replaced. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioners be directed to quash the arbitrary and unjustified bill dated 14.10.2003 and instead furnished fresh justified bills on the basis of actual consumption as per the Electricity Manual and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental tension and inconvenience and Rs.2,500/- as litigation costs. Petitioner/Corporation denied the above allegations and stated that the meter got burnt due to excess load on the same and the Petitioner after due inspection informed Respondent that he had to deposit the cost for a new meter before it could be replaced. However, Respondent declined to do so, and therefore, a new meter could not be installed. It was also noted that even thereafter Respondent was continuously using the electricity connection and therefore, bills were issued on the basis of average consumption assessment after 05.06.1992 upto 05.03.1995 but these were not paid and therefore the electricity supply was provisionally disconnected on 05.03.1995. Although the Respondent has admitted that the electricity bill of Rs.4,600/- on account of consumption upto 20.12.1994 as per bill dated 08.05.1995 was received by him, this amount was admittedly not paid and thereafter the bills were generated on the basis of average assessments amounting to Rs.53,158/- which were also not paid. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner/Corporation and it was the Respondent who had been unauthorisedly using electricity and not paying for the same.

THE District Forum after hearing both parties partly allowed the complaint and issued the following directions to the Petitioner/Corporation: (i) All bills issued by the Petitioners after 05.03.1995 i.e. the date from which the electricity supply was disconnected were to be quashed and Petitioners were directed to issue amended bills from 30.04.1992 to 6 months after the date of disconnection to Respondent on the basis of average consumption of electricity of the last six months. No surcharge was to be levied on the bills and after deposit of this bill, electricity connection of the Petitioner was to be restored within a period of one month without any surcharge. (ii) The Petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental tension and inconveniences and Rs.1,000/- as litigation costs.

AGGRIEVED by this order, both Petitioner and Respondent filed appeals before the State Commission, the latter for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum by directing that the Petitioner/Corporation charge the Respondent only Rs.4,600/- which amount was shown as outstanding against the Respondent vide bill dated 20.12.1994 and to restore the supply of electricity on the deposit of this amount subject to compliance of necessary formalities as required under the various Rules and Regulations. The compensation was also increased to Rs.20,000/-. The relevant part of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below: "The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant was the user of the electricity. He was provided a Meter No.141145 and he was regularly using the connection since 24.03.1992 up to the date of disconnection i.e. 05.03.1995. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that factum of the meter being burnt was brought to the notice of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and then thereafter the meter started reading NR. It was ultimately disconnected on 05.03.1995. The contention raised by Sri Ishar Husain that since there was uninterrupted use of the electricity even after disconnection, the department was justified in sending the bills, on the fact of it, is not acceptable obviously for the reason that it is admitted to the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. that the connection was disconnected on 05.03.1995. Even if it is held that temporary disconnection was done on 05.03.1995 even then permanent disconnection should have been done in view of the provisions as available to the Corporation within three months. Thus, obviously there will be presumption of permanent disconnection from 05.06.1995 but this legal position also does not solve any purpose to the appellant because admittedly the meter being burnt was made inactive and the disconnection was done. Thus, in the considered view of the Commission, there was no justification to have sent the bill after 05.03.1995. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.4,600/- was shown as outstanding against the complainant by the department in the bill dated 20.12.1994. Obviously, it was under an obligation of the complainant to make the payment. In the instant case, no material has been placed before us to come to a decisive conclusion that this payment has been made by the complainant. Thus, the outstanding payment of sum of Rs.4,600/- is the liability of the complainant. We are also satisfied that since the disconnection has been done on 05.03.1995, no bill could have been legally sent after this period. Thus, in this state of affairs, obviously sending of the bills of Rs.53,158/- is totally unjustified and it should be reduced to Rs.4,600/-. "

Compensation was increased for Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- on the grounds that the Respondent was really sincere in getting the reconnection done and this is borne out by the number of personal meetings and applications that he had made before the Petitioner for re-providing the electricity connection and installing a new meter which was not heeded to by the Petitioner.

NOT satisfied with the order of the State Commission, both parties have filed the present revision petitions.

NOTICES were issued to both parties. Counsel for Petitioner was present. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Since 30 days have already elapsed from the date of issue of notice, service is deemed to be complete and the case is being proceeded ex parte. Learned Counsel for Petitioner in his oral submissions averred that the case of the Respondent was dealt with strictly in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Petitioner/Corporation. Admittedly, the Respondent ''s meter got burnt and when he was asked to deposit the cost for putting a new meter, Respondent declined to do so which is clear from his letter dated 27.04.1992 which was filed before the District Forum. Since no security deposit was paid, Petitioner could not forfeit the same and as per Rules, on the basis of his average assessment of electricity consumption, provisional bills were sent to the Respondent. However, although he kept receiving bills and also consuming the electricity, Respondent did not pay the same and, therefore, the Petitioner/Corporation had no option but to provisionally disconnect the electricity from 05.03.1995. Thereafter, on the basis of average assessment of electric consumption, an amount of Rs.7,666/- became due and since this bill was also not paid, as per the surcharge levied in accordance with the regulations, an amount of Rs.53,158/- became due from the Respondent which was also challenged by him before the District Forum. To a specific query by us as to how the Petitioner could raise bills against the Respondent once the electricity had been disconnected, Counsel for Petitioner conceded that they are ready to quash the bills amounting to Rs.53,158/- i.e. bills issued after 05.03.1995 when the electricity supply was provisionally disconnected but the Respondent was still required to pay bills prior to this period amounting to Rs.4,600/- which has not been paid till date as also the charges for replacement of the meter. However, Counsel for Petitioner contended that the State Commission erred in directing the Petitioner to restore the electricity supply following the deposit of Rs.4,600/- and also increasing the compensation amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.

WE have heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. Admittedly, the meter installed in the premises of the Respondent got burnt and the Respondent did not deposit the required amount for its replacement. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent did not pay the bills which were issued after 05.06.1992 and prior to the disconnection of the electricity of the Respondent on 05.03.1995. In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum that the bills issued after 05.03.1995 be quashed and fresh bills be prepared for the period from 30.04.1992 till 6 months after the date of disconnection i.e. 05.03.1995 on the basis of 6 months of average consumption based on bills issued prior to 30.04.1992 and without levy of any surcharge, is a fair and more reasonable direction and, therefore, uphold the same. To sum-up the orders of the Fora below are modified in respect of the R.P. No.3598/2007 as per the following directions:

PETITIONER /Corporation is directed to prepare bills for the period from 30.04.1992 till 05.03.1995 on the basis of 6 months average consumption within a period of 2 weeks from today and on deposit of the amount in respect of the said bills, restore the supply of electricity to the Respondent. Bills issued after disconnection of electricity supply to the Respondent amounting to Rs.53,993/- are quashed. Petitioner/Corporation is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the Respondent towards mental agony within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Revision Petition No.3729 of 2007 has been filed by the Respondent/Complainant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the State Commission. Since, Respondent/Complainant did not appear before us and in view of our order in R.P. No.3598/2007, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Even on merits, we are of the view that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded to the Respondent/Complainant by the District Forum is adequate since admittedly Respondent had also erred in not depositing the amount required for replacement of the new meter and not settling the bill amounting to Rs.4,600/-. R.P.No.3729/2007 is, therefore, dismissed. Ordered accordingly.