UPSEB vs SHANKAR MAURYA

BOTH these appeals no doubt are directed against separate judgments in separate cases but they raise a common question of fact and hence they are being taken up together and are being decided by a common judgment. Appeal No. 917/SC/1999 arises out of order and judgment dated 11.3.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Deoria in Complaint Case No. 33A of 1998. Similarly Appeal No. 918/SC/1999 arises out of judgment and order dated 11.3.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Deoria in Complaint Case No. 113 of 1997.

THE facts of the case stated in brief in Appeal No. 917/1999 are that the complainant Shankar Maurya has filed a complaint for directing the opposite party not to realise the electricity dues from 1.1.1994 to 8.10.1997. THE complainant had also prayed for compensation. According to the complainant, he had an electric connection for running an ''Aata Chakki'' and tube-well. In the month of December, 1993 one electric pole was destroyed through which the electricity was supplied to the complainant. THEreafter the electricity was discontinued. This electric pole was installed in the field of someone else and he was not willing to get it re-erected for supply of electricity to the complainant. A complaint was also filed by the complainant bearing No. 158/1994 which was decided on 12.8.1997. In compliance to that judgment, electricity was resumed from 9.10.1997. THEreafter the complainant utilised the electric connection upto 25.12.1997 but thereafter that connection was disconnected on the ground that the complainant did not clear the dues from 1.1.1994 till 30.12.1997. According to the Electricity Department, the complainant should have deposited the amount for the intervening period. THE complainant has alleged that as he has not utilised the electric connection for that period due to non-supply of electricity, he is not liable to pay any charges, but the opposite parties are trying to realise the amount. THE complainant has, therefore, claimed damages. The opposite party has alleged that in December, 1993 one of the electric pole was damaged through which the electricity was supplied to the complainant. The complaint which was filed by the complainant was decided on 12.8.1997 and thereafter the electricity was restored. It is alleged that after the disconnection of electricity in the year 1993 the opposite parties were prepared to give electric connection to the complainant but the complainant did not wish to take electricity from that line but from another line on account of which the electricity was disconnected from 1.1.1994 to 8.10.1997.

The complainant filed affidavits in support of his contention but no affidavit was filed by the Electricity Department in support of its contention as mentioned in the judgment of the learned District Forum.

THE learned District Forum after considering the case of the parties came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on behalf of the Electricity Department and hence directed for reconnection and for not realising the amount for which period the electricity was not supplied. It did not allow any other relief claimed by the complainant. In the other Appeal No. 918/SC/1999, it is alleged that the complainant''s father had an electric connection on 16.7.1983 for running a tube-well. The complainant''s father had expired. A fixed amount was also charged by the Electricity Department for consumption of the electricity. In December, 1983, one electric pole which was installed in the field of a neighbour was damaged, but that person did not allow the pole to be re-erected again. On account of this fact the electricity was disconnected from December, 1993. Complaints were made to the Electricity Department, but nothing was done. A complaint was therefore, filed bearing No. 157/1994 which was decided on 12.8.1997. The electricity connection was restored by the Electricity Department on 30.9.1997.

NOW the Electricity Department wants to realise the electricity dues for the period 1.12.1993 to 30.9.1997 for which period no electricity was used by the complainant. The opposite party also stated that as the connection was in the name of the father of the complainant, hence it should therefore, be converted in the name of the complainant. It is prayed that electricity charges may not be charged by the Electricity Department from the complainant for the period 1.12.1994 to 30.9.1997. In the written version the Electricity Department has admitted the facts alleged in the complaint. According to it the electricity dues upto June, 1993 was paid by the complainant. It also admitted that from December, 1993 to 30.9.1997 no electricity was supplied to the complainant but the complainant is liable to pay the amount of electricity for that period. The electricity could not be given to the complainant on account of the fact the pole was damaged and that gentleman did not allow re-erection of the pole. The opposite party was prepared to give electricity to the complainant from the other side, but the complainant was not prepared to have the same. After the decision of Complaint Case No. 157/1994 the electricity supply was resumed on 30.9.1997. As the complainant had not paid the electricity dues from December, 1993 to 30.9.1997 but the opposite parties were prepared to provide electricity from some other connection, therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the electricity dues for that period on minimum guarantee charges. The learned District Forum had mentioned that the complainant has filed an affidavit but the opposite party, Electricity Department, did not file any affidavit in support of its contention.

THE learned District Forum, after considering the cases of the parties, decreed the claim of the complainant only with respect to restoration of electricity and for a direction not to realise the dues for the period the electricity was not used. Learned District Forum had also directed that the name of the complainant be substituted in place of his father.

AGGRIEVED against both the orders of the learned District Forum, the Electricity Department has come in appeal and have challenged the correctness of the orders. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record.

It is an admitted fact that in both the cases the complainants were being supplied electricity from a pole which was installed in the field of another person. When this pole was damaged it was not allowed to be re-erected by that person in his field. Therefore, the electricity supply was discontinued for a certain period. Even on request by the complainants the Electricity Department was not prepared to resume electricity connection and whereupon both the complainants had to file complaints which were decreed and the appellant was directed to restore the electric connections. In pursuance of those judgments the electricity supply of both the complainants was restored. It is an admitted fact that after some time the electricity supply was discontinued by the appellant on the ground that the complainant have not paid the minimum guarantee charges for the period for which the electric supply was not given to the complainants on account of damaged pole. In the case of Appeal No. 918/99 it was alleged that the complainant was offered to be given electricity connection from another pole which he refused. As mentioned by the learned District Forum, no affidavit was filed by the appellant in support of this contention. Therefore, the allegations of the opposite party to this effect are not supported by an affidavit and no reliance can be placed on the same.

WHEN it is admitted fact that on account of the fault of the appellant, the electricity supply could not be given to the complainant for a certain period, for no fault of the complainant, the complainant is not liable to pay even the minimum guarantee charges. The minimum guarantee charges can only be claimed when the Electricity Department is prepared to supply the electricity but the consumer refuses to utilise the same. In the present case the facts on record reveal that the appellant could not restore the electricity connection on account of the damaged pole which could not be replaced. After the filing of the previous complaint, the Electricity Department had to restore the electricity in accordance with the judgment of the learned District Forum in which direction was issued that the electricity connection should be resumed from another pole within a period of two months. WHEN there was no fault of the complainants, the complainants are not bound to pay any charges during that period. Therefore, disconnection of the electricity by the appellant was without any grounds which amounts to deficiency in service. The appellant had no right to charge any amount on account of minimum guarantee charges when no electricity was restored by the complainants on account of the damaged line. The complainants were therefore, justified in refusing to pay electricity dues during the period their lines remained dead. As there was no justification for the appellant to have disconnected the electricity, there was no option for the District Forum but to decree the claim of the complainant and issue a direction to the appellant for restoring the electric connection and for not charging any amount for the period for which no electricity was supplied to the complainants by the appellant. Thus we find that the judgments and orders of the learned District Forum in both the cases are perfectly justified and no interference is required. The appeals are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. order

THE appeals are dismissed and the judgments and orders of the learned District Forum are confirmed. THE appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainants of each of the appeals. Let this judgment be kept on the records of Appeal No. 917/1999 and a certified copy of the same be placed on the records of Appeal No. 918/1999, which shall also be governed by this judgment. Let compliance of order be made within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeals dismissed.