BHERU LAL Vs. BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied with the order dated 13-9-1990 passed by the District Forum, Udaipur in Complaint Case No.50/89, the complainant whose complaint was dismissed has filed this appeal. In the complaint Rajasthan Electricity Board, Jaipur, Executive Engineer, R. S. E. B. , City Division, Udaipur and Assistant Engineer, R. S. E. B. , City Division, Udaipur, 175, Ashok Nagar were impleaded as opposite parties Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively. They have been arrayed as respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the appeal. It was alleged by the complainant that electric connection was given to him by opposite party No.1 at his residence house No.18, Nayaya Marg, Udaipur. It was averred that since 1972 for domestic service there were two meters. One meter was in respect of consumer No.14654 which was for heat and power. The second meter was in regard to consumer No.20164 for fans, light, radio etc. The complainant got a well dug in his plot in the year 1979 for drinking water, washing of cloths etc. and took 3 H. P. motor connection. It is said that on account of ignorance opposite party No.3 got his signatures on his application and a new meter mentioning consumer No.16357 was installed. When he came to know that new meter has been installed and there was no necessity of a separate meter, he submitted an application on 24.8.1981 to opposite party No.3 that he wants to remove meter of consumer No.16357 as the pump installed for which 3 H. P. connection was taken, fall under the category of domestic service. The complainant has further alleged that meter No.14654 was removed. The case of the complainant is that bill of consumer No.16357 which was taken as domestic service is being issuing by opposite party No.3 @ 75 paise per unit instead of 57 paise and so 18 paise charged are in excess. The complainant has deposited the bill of February 1986 on 23-2-1986. It is said that the last reading showed in the bill was 12820 in February 1989. Opposite party No.3 gave a bill in which the present reading was shown as 22230. The case of the complainant is that in respect of the bills pertaining to February 1986 to December 1988 the amount of which has already been deposited. A bill for Rs.1693.80 was issued which was wrong for difference. According to the complainant, in respect of consumer No.16397 rate of Small Scale Industries Services was charged, which is not in accordance with Schedule HP/lt-5. It was stated that no such work of Small Scale Industries was done at his residence. It was stated that in fact connection No.16357 was taken for domestic service and not for heat and power and so charges should be according to domestic service Shedule DH/lt-1. The complainant, therefore, filed the complaint dated 1-3-1989 before the District Forum praying for the following reliefs a. that the opposite parties may be directed to refund Rs.1693.80 to the complainant; b. that a direction may be issued to the opposite parties not to prepare any bill of the complainant in future on the basis of Small Scale. Industries Service provided in Schedule HP/lt-5 and to charge at the domestic service provided in Schedule DH/lt-1 which is for heat and power; c. Expenses of the complaint were claimed.

(2.) The complainant submitted photo stat copies of the notice dated 27-8-1985 and bills 25.1.1989 17.2.1989 and 22-2-1986.

(3.) The opposite parties traversed the allegations made in complaint vide version of the case dated 30-4-1989. It was asserted that consumer No.16357 was an industrial connection and according to the prescribed rate the amount for the consumption of the energy is realised. It was pleaded that the complainant himself submitted an application for grant of connection for Small Scale Industries and according to that connection was given and the charges are being recovered. It was stated that when the complainant has not taken the domestic connection how can rate DH/lt-1 can be charged from him. It was submitted that in the past, a dispute was raised by the complainant in respect of connection No.16357 as to whether industrial rate or the domestic rate should be charged He instituted a Civil Suit in the Court of Munsif North, Udaipur which was registered as Suit No.284/79 and it was decided on 28-3-81. The Munsif (North) Udaipur dismissed the Suit. Photo stat copy of the order of the Munsif was filed with the version of the case. The Suit of the complainant was dismissed. The matter was taken to the District Judge, Udaipur. The appeal was transferred to the Civil Judge, Udaipur. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 24-4-1982. A revision was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan which was also dismissed in 1987. It was submitted that the dispute raised by the complainant has been determined by Civil Courts and, therefore, the present complaint is against fundamental principles of justice. It was also stated that whatever realisation is made in regard to the consumption of electricity in respect of connection No.16357 from the complainant as consumer is in accordance with the Rules. Before the District Forum the complainant submitted his affidavit. He was cross-examined on his affidavit. On behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Shri Manohar Singh was submitted. On behalf of the complainant written arguments were submitted. Times was sought on behalf of the opposite parties for filing written arguments in reply. It heard the arguments on 21-8-1990 and dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal as aforesaid. .