GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PARESHBHAI RAMANIKLAL DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from order dated 30.8.2003 rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banaskantha in Consumer Case No. 176 of 2001 directing the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board to reconnect the electric supply with regard to connection No. 3324 held by the complainant within 10 days from the date of the order and to pay compensation and cost in the sum of Rs. 1,500 within 30 days from the date of order on the following brief allegations of facts noted by the learned Forum.

(2.) THE complainant held two electric connections in respect of the same premiss bearing No. 3322 for industrial purpose and it was a three -phase connection and electric connection No. 3324 which was a single phase connection. The error committed in stating the number of the electric connection might be corrected as the industrial connection is not 3322 but it is 3323. As the arrears of electric supply in respect of industrial connection were not paid, a notice was issued for disconnection of electricity supply from the post through which both the connections were given. Complainant, however, disputed that disconnection of electricity supply of single phase connection No. 3324 was not warranted by law and it amounted to deficiency in service. The complainant prayed for restoration of electricity of that connection, compensation and cost from the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board [GEB for short] by filing aforesaid complaint. The opponent contended that both the connections were given in the same premises and were co -relatable and, therefore, it was entitled to disconnect electricity supply with regard to both the connections. The opponent GEB was required to file civil suit for recovery of arrears of outstanding bill in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.). Under such circumstances, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint by asserting that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opponent GEB. The learned Forum came to the conclusion that on one hand opponent GEB did not produce copy of the suit filed in the Civil Court and on the other hand, opponent GEB did not set out particulars with regard to whether there was any outstanding bill with regard to the single phase connection. The learned Forum, therefore, found that in spite of the fact that the complainant had paid the electricity burning charges with regard to single phase connection, disconnection of electricity supply to that connection amounted to deficiency in service. The learned Forum, therefore, passed the impugned order.

(3.) NO one has appeared for the original complainant -now respondent in this appeal. The learned Advocate appearng for the opponent GEB would first submit that as a matter of fact a composite notice was given with regard to both the aforesaid connections setting out particulars about the outstanding bills in respect of both the connections. We have verified the notice which is dated 23.7.2001 which shows that Rs. 66,977 were outstanding for the industrial connection and Rs. 1,530 were outstanding for the single phase connection. In that view of the matter, it was within the power of opponent GEB under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to cut off the electricity supply from both or either of the electricity connections. It was for the complainant to produce the notice before the learned Forum. If that notice was produced, correct facts might have been noticed. By not producing the notice, the complainant has suppressed material facts from the learned Forum. In either case, the complainant was not entitled to make a grievance about alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opponent GEB.