SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SOUTH ARCOT VALLALAR DISTRICT, ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE Vs. S SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are of the view that the appeal has to be accepted. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the complainant was required to make an additional security deposit in a sum of Rs. 610. The complainant questioned it. Later the opposite party revised it claiming a sum of Rs. 450 as additional security deposit. This was also not deposited by the complainant, who went about writing letters to the opposite party. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under rule when the complainant has not made the deposit in spite of demand, the supply to the consumer was disconnected. The power to disconnect is not questioned by the complainant, nor can be questioned. The fact also remains that the complainant has not made additional security deposit.

(2.) IT is no doubt true that from the correspondence, we find that earlier on prior occasions whenever demands were made for deposit of additional security amount the complainant pointed out certain mistakes and certain facts upon which the amount demanded were revised. But the fact remains that every time when additional security deposit was called for and when representations were made by the complainant stating that the amount claimed was high and that he cannot be called up to make deposit such a high amount, the department after taking into consideration the representation of the complainant revised it. That only shows that the opposite party has been responding to the representations of the complainant and that it cannot give room for any inference that there has been deficiency in service.

(3.) IN such a big organization as Electricity Board when there are thousands of consumers, chances of making mistake in calculating the amounts due by a consumer whether it be towards consumption charges or towards security deposit are always present. We cannot expect a flawless perfection in such matters. Therefore, the order of the lower Forum stating that the mere fact that they raised demand for a higher amount and later revised it would itself show that there was deficiency in service is not a proper reasoning. Thus it follows that the demand for deposit of additional security whether it be for Rs. 610 or Rs. 450 was not complied with and, therefore, on 19.10.1996 the service was disconnected. It is also evident from the record that on the very same day at about 11 p.m. the complainant soon deposited the security amount along with the reconnection charges and the power was restored on the 19th itself. The finding of the Lower Forum that it was only restored on 22.10.1996 is not acceptable. It runs counter to the records. The Lower Forum has made a very curious observation. In that it stated that disconnection at the aerial point cannot be done and it amounts to deficiency in service. The reasoning given by the Lower Forum is very curious. There is no rule or regulation, which specifies that the disconnection should be made only in the fuse carrier inside the premises and not at the electricity post. The learned Counsel for the respondent is unable to point out any provision of law or any rule framed by the Electricity Board or regulations to show that disconnection can be effected only at the supply point in the house not at the post. It is left to the option of the Department to effect disconnection either at the post or inside the premises by removing the fuse carrier. The rule only mentions that non -payment of amount would entail disconnection and disconnection can be effected either at the aerial point or at the point of domestic supply. Therefore, we are unable to accept the verdict of the Lower Forum in holding that there is deficiency in service. In the result, we accept the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Lower Forum. The order passed by the Lower Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.