EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION DIVN Vs. RANVEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.7.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum,

(2.) The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant Ranvir Singh is the Managing Director of a cinema hall. He applied for an electric connection. He deposited necessary amount for electricity connection. After getting the power connection from the opposite parties, the bills for consumption which he received was paid to the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the opposite parties are duty bound to supply electric energy and also supply correct bills for the consumption of electricity. A contract was entered between the parties. The opposite parties are careless in the matter of bills of electricity consumed. Inspite of several requests to opposite party No.1, U. P. State Electricity Board, the staff of opposite party No.1 failed to collect the correct units of electricity consumed through meter. Excessive billing was done. The complainant paid bills upto October 89 but thereafter he applied for correction of bill pertaining to period 16.11.89 to 18.12.89. Since no action was taken by the opposite party, he stopped making payment of the above bill. Supply of electricity was illegally disconnected with effect from March 1990. Thereafter a bill, copy of which was enclosed as Annexure A, for Rs.2,769.10 was shown as outstanding against the complainant. After the disconnection the complainant is liable to pay minimum charges which are Rs.70/- per month, but the respondent arbitrarily added a sum of Rs.639/- and have shown an outstanding figure of Rs.25,426.27 which does not show the correct amount of the electricity consumed.

(3.) The business of the complainant suffered disruption and he suffered loss on account of this. The complainant is running his Cinema by means of generator after the disconnection of the electricity supply. It is further alleged that the outstanding amount shown by the employees of opposite party No.4 is Rs.18,777.50 which is neither in accordance with the bill, copy of which is annexed, nor in accordance with the minimum charges. The recovery certificate which has been issued is not correct and coercive action is taken for realization of this amount. It is further alleged that the opposite parties be restrained from not charging the bill. It is further prayed that the electricity be restored to his premises and a correct bill be issued to him.