RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.4.91 by which the District Forum, Jodhpur passed an interim direction to the opposite parties not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant on the ground of the arrears of bills. The complaint has not been finally disposed of by the District Forum as yet. Facts leading to this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. The complaint was filed against the RSEB through its Chairman, AEN (Vigilance) Jodhpur and AEN, Borunda, RSEB. They were arrayed as opposite parties No.1 to 3 in the complaint. The complainant has alleged that he is consumer of Account No.1/236 and no amount is outstanding against him. It was further alleged that on 15.3.91 at 5 p. m. opposite party No.1 told him either to pay Rs.67,500/- as per the bill else his supply will be discontinued. Opposite Party No.2 further told him not to enter into a litigation and give so in writing stating so. The complainant further stated that it was night time and the complainant wanted to retain his electric connection, so he signed the document. According to the complainant this action on the part of opposite party No.2 was wholly wrong. He, therefore, sent the complaint by post which was received by the District Forum on 19.3.91 praying that the bill relating to Rs.67,500/- may be quashed and claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

(2.) The case of the opposite parties was that the complainant had committed a theft of electricity by stopping meter which was checked on the spot by opposite party No.2. The complainant made request to opposite party No.2 for compounding the electricity theft. On the request of the complainant opposite party No.2 agreed to compound the electricity theft on the conditions laid down by RSEB and agreed to by him. For this purpose, the document was signed by the complainant agreeing to pay Rs.67,500/-. The complainant did not pay the amount. In order to save himself from the consequences resulting from the writing, he filed the complaint which according to the opposite parties is a false complaint.

(3.) During the pendency of the complaint the complainant submitted an application stating that the appellant has revised the amount of the bill and by issuing a supplementary bill the opposite parties demanded Rs,.1,12,500/- from the complainant- respondent. That notice has been produced and marked as Annexure 2, in this appeal. The complainant submitted an interim application. In that application a prayer was made by the complainant that an interim order may be passed against the opposite parties restraining them from realizing the amount of the appeal. A mention was made in the application that he has already deposited a sum of Rs.7,500/- under protest with the Department in connection with the bill for Rs.67,500/-. On this application the impugned order dated 29.4.91 was passed. At the same time the District Forum ordered for the issuance of the notices to the opposite parties. Aggrieved this appeal has been filed.