UPSEB Vs. SHANKAR MAURYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.