U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SHAN INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.3.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Shahjahanpur in Complaint Case No.184/1992.

(2.) The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant had a rice mill for which he took 60 H. P. electricity connection. The complainant had also 80 H. P. oil engine in order to run the rice mill in the event of failure of electricity. The complainant had regularly paid the bills but before the start of the season 1991-92, in November, 1991 the transformer and the meter installed by the opposite party were burnt. On account of this fact the rice mill could not run. A complaint to this effect was made to the Junior Engineer of the Electricity Department who assured for replacement of the transformer. Thereafter a complaint was made in writing on 17.11.1991, when nothing was made on the verbal complaint. Another complaint was also made on 25.11.1991. When there was no response to these applications the complainant again made a complaint on 26.11.1991. According to the complainant the transformer was changed on 21.11.1991 but the meter was not changed. In the month of November no electricity was supplied and the complainant had to run the mill on oil machine. In December, 1991 he received a bill for Rs.12,894.40. This bill related to the period November, 1991. When he made a complaint to the Assistant Engineer he assured that the bill will be corrected. When the bill was not corrected the complainant approached the office of the Electricity Department. He again received another bill for the same amount for the month of December, 1991. The meter was not changed by this time. The complainant alleged that he has suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/-. He has also prayed for correction of bill and replacement of meter.

(3.) The opposite parties have admitted that the complainant paid two bills for September, 1991 but did not deposit the amount of rebate of Rs.211.40. The complainant had to deposit Rs.3,071.94 in respect of the bill for October, 1991. The complainant's meter became defective in November, 1991 and did not record any reading and it was changed on 12.3.1992. The transformer which had developed defects in the night of 14/15 November, 1991 and was replaced without undue delay. The complainant did not receive electricity only for 12 days. The meter was not burnt but its calendar had developed defects. The provisional bill was prepared as the reading was not received. As the amount of the bill has not been paid, the department is entitled to disconnect the electricity.