GURDEV SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short ''District Forum ''), vide which the execution application filed by him for the execution of the order dated 19.5.2009 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No.628 of 2009 preferred against the order dated 24.4.2009 passed by the District Forum, was dismissed.

(2.) THE relevant facts, for the disposal of the present appeal, are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ''the Act '') against the respondents -Ops for setting aside the notice served vide memo No.1769 dated 1.8.2008 (herei nafter referred to as ''the memo '') and for directing the OPs not to disconnect his electric connection and claiming a compensation of Rs.20,000/ -. According to complainant, the electric connection in question was purchased by him from the legal heirs of Shugal Chand and the same was transferred in his name by the OPs on the basis of the application dated 10.12.2004. Subsequently, he got the load of electric energy enhanced by making an application and that electric connection was being checked by the OPs from time to time. Notice in the form of memo was served upon him that the facility of electric energy was being misused by him and the same was illegal. That complaint was resisted by the OPs on the ground that the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant was checked on 29.7.2008 and it was found that he was running a Saw Mill by extracting electric line from the electric connection without seeking their permission. While deciding the complaint on merits, it was held by the District Forum that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In the appeal preferred against that order before this Commission, the order was passed on 19.5.2009. The complainant was given the liberty to file his reply to the memo before the OPs within a period of two weeks from the passing of the order and the OPs were given the liberty to pass any appropriate order as permissible under the rules and regulations after considering that reply and the complainant was given the liberty to challenge that order in accordance with law. The complainant filed application under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act contending therein that in pursuance of the order passed by this Commission he gave his reply to the memo on 1.6.2009. Thereafter he received a letter dated 15.6.2009 from the OPs asking from him for the proof regarding the change of purpose in respect of the electric connection. It was not mentioned as to what type of proof was called for. It was also mentioned in the letter that in case such a proof was not furnished within 15 days, the electric connection would be disconnected. He had been repeatedly visiting the office of the OPs to enquire about the nature of proof and he had even given that proof which was in his possession but the OPs did not agree and ultimately his electric connection was disconnected. He prayed that his electric connection be got restored. In reply to that application, it was averred by the OPs that the complainant never complied with the memo. In the letters dated 15.6.2009 and 1.10.2009 it was mentioned as to what formalities were to be completed by the complainant but he failed to comply with the same. He was having no proof regarding the change of business and accordingly the electric connection was disconnected. The complainant was at liberty to challenge the orders dated 15.6.2009 and 1.10.2009 passed by them. Instead of availing that remedy he filed application under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act and that application is not maintainable.

(3.) IT has been submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that once the complainant replied the memo, the OPs were bound to decide the case in his favour in view of the observations made by this Commission in the order passed in the appeal. Electric connection could not have been disconnected on the ground that there was change of user as that fact already stands decided in his favour in the previous bout of litigation before the Foras under the Act. He could have given that proof as asked for by the OPs if the nature of that proof had been disclosed to him. Therefore, the OPs were not justified in disconnecting the electric connection and he is entitled to have the same restored.