RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) has been filed by the opposite-party against the order dated 24.10.89, passed by the District Forum Bikaner in Complaint Case No.106/89. The District Forum by the impugned order, has directed that the opposite-party-appellant should pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation within a period of two months and further to restore the electric connection within four days to the complainant to Electric Account No.1-2- 112. A further direction was given that the meter of the complainant may be shifted in accordance with the application. It may be stated that the complainant filed the complaint under Sec.12 of the Act. It is dated 7.7.89. It was prayed by him that the opposite party may be ordered to shift the meter and restore the electric supply and further that on account of disconnection, the complainant has been put to loss, so compensation may be ordered. Other expenses and costs were also claimed. In the application for stay of the operation of the order, which was submitted on 7.12.89 the opposite-party-appellant has stated that in compliance of the order of the District Forum, electric connection has been restored. The complainant-respondent did not dispute this. In these circumstances, so far as the direction of restoration of electric supply is concerned, it has been complied with and, thus, the complainant-respondent had already got the relief of restoration of electric supply. In this appeal, the dispute is only with respect to the award of compensation amounting to Rs.8,000/-. We shall notice the facts material for determining this dispute.

(2.) The complainant has alleged that he submitted an application on 26.12.80 to the Assistant Engineer, D-3, Electricity Board. Bikaner, stating that the meter of the electric connection Account No.1-2-112 may be shifted to his building. An estimate was prepared and the complainant was informed on 12.2.81 that a sum of Rs.35/- may be deposited for the shifting of the meter. In compliance of that, the complainant deposited Rs.35/- on 13.2.81 vide receipt No.40. Thereupon, the Assistant Engineer gave order to the Junior Engineer to shift the meter and give connection. On 13.2.81. the Junior Engineer came to the spot in the evening and removed the wires between the main line and the meter. The duty hours were over and as such he left the place saying that the meter would be shifted the next day. According to the complainant, thereafter nobody on behalf of the opposite-party came for shifting the meter upto the date of filing of the complaint and the electric wires were not connected. On account of this, the complainant was deprived of the use of electricity. The complainant is said to have contacted the authorities and wrote letters in this connection. Ultimately, the complainant received a letter dated 29.10.86 from the opposite-party, in which it is written that the meter could not be shifted on the excuse of the complainant that the key is not with him. In that letter, it was also written that the complainant has not deposited the electricity dues from March 1981 to July 1981 and so on 9.7.81 the supply was disconnected as the amount of Rs.126/- was not deposited. It was also stated that from April, 1981, as the domestic electricity was consumed in the shop, the commercial charges were levied. The complainant replied to the letter on 30.10.86 and, thereafter, nothing was done. The complainant filed the complaint as aforesaid for the above mentioned reliefs.

(3.) Notice was issued to the opposite party. It was admitted that the amount for shifting the meter was deposited, an alleged by the complainant. It was, however, denied that on 13.2.81, the meter and wires were removed and electric supply was discontinued, as alleged by the complainant. The case of the opposite-party as set out in the version of the case is that the complainant sent back the Junior Engineer on 13.2.81 saying that the key is not with him. Thereafter, the key was not made available and, therefore, the meter could not be shifted. According to the opposite-party, the disconnection was done on 9.7.81 as the electricity dues were not deposited. Letters dated 5.8.85, 31.12.85, 15.1.86, 19.5.86, 29.10.86, 20.11.86, 23.9.86, 27.9.86, 7.11.86, 14.1.87, 9.11.87, 2.1.88, 7.1.88, 28.1.88, 22.2.88, 10.3.88 and 14.4.88 were sent to the complainant for depositing the amount. He, however, unnecessarily entered into the correspondence. It was also stated that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1498.83 and, thereafter, the electric supply was restored. The District Forum formulated two questions for determination: (1) Whether the disconnection was made on 13.2.81 or 9.7.81? (2) Whether the complainant did not allow the opposite-party to shift the meter on 13.2.81 The District Forum held that the version of the complainant appears to be correct that the disconnection was made on 13.2.81 by removing the wires between the main line and the meter. As the disconnection was done without notice, it cannot be said to be in accordance with the Rules and, therefore, the opposite-party is liable. After considering Condition No.30 and other facts, the District Forum recorded a finding that the complainant has succeeded in establishing that the disconnection was done on 13.2.81 and, thereafter, the complainant had to remain without electricity and, therefore, he is entitled to compensation and also for the restoration of the electric supply. According to the District Forum, the complainant must have been put to inconvenience on account of the disconnection and he had to remain without electricity for a period of nine years and, therefore, it was of the opinion that a sum of Rs.8,000/- should be awarded as compensation. It, therefore, passed the order as stated above.