SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER HVPN Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam (hereinafter referred to as H. V. P. N.) against the order of the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar dated 27.7.1998 vide which the District Forum held that penalty imposed upon the complainant by the Board i. e. , amount of arrears with surcharge if any, cannot be recovered from the complainant and set aside the demand of Rs.2,113/- added as arrears alongwith surcharge as the Board is not entitled to recover the same from the complainant. The District Forum also directed to the Board to issue a fresh bill after adjusting all the amounts including Rs.1,000/- paid by the complainant.

(2.) Notice of the appeal was issued and in pursuance of which Mr. M. S. Guglani, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and has contended that there is no ambiguity in the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) We have considered the submissions of the Counsel of both sides and have also perused the impugned order. The complainant in the complaint has alleged that he received a bill amounting to Rs.2,798/- in November, 1994 in which Rs.2,113/- was claimed as arrears. The complainant also received a bill in January, 1995 for Rs.3,039/- in which previous bill was included. The complainant has alleged that the meter reading was 199 units only. There was consumption of 58 units whereas in the bill issued to him consumption of 284 units has been shown, which is factually wrong. The complainant has also alleged that his sanctioned load was 0.2 KW and there is only one bulb, one tube, one fan and one press only. As such, he has not consumed the units as referred by the Board. On the other hand, the respondent has taken a plea that the complainant was charged for 120 units per month as his meter was found hanging and there is no ambiguity in the same. The complainant had failed to pay Rs.3,039/- and as such, he is not entitled to any relief from the Court. However, it has been admitted that connection of the complainant was restored on the deposit of Rs.1,000/- under the orders of the District Forum. The Commission has also observed from the record that argument was raised by the Counsel for the complainant before the District Forum that no checking or inspection was ever made by the opposite party-Board and the Board has not placed on record any checking report either by the S. D. O. or by the Checking Inspector. Since the plea taken by the Board has not been proved, the same cannot be relied upon. In view of the matter, the Commission is of the considered view that since the Electricity Board failed to prove its case before the District Forum, the District Forum committed no error in issuing direction to the Board not to recover Rs.2,113/- from the complainant and issue a fresh bill after adjusting all the amounts including Rs.1,000/- paid by the complainant. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.