HARIKISHAN Vs. R S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant absent. Hence heard the learned Counsel for the respondent. The case of the complainant-appellant was that although he had deposited the dues, outstanding against him for the month of December, 1994 by the due date but the respondent again raised the same liability in respect of the same consuming period and threatened him to disconnect his electric connection in the event of his not depositing the amount of Rs.265/- raised through the second bill for the same consuming period. The appellant deposited the amount of Rs.265/- twice for the same consuming period and for the same bill but still the electric supply was disconneced. It was also his case that he was required to deposit the re-connection fee at Rs.33/- and although he deposited such fees also on 21.1.1995 but even then the supply of electric energy was not restored to him. The case of the respondent was that it was simply by mistake of fact that the reconnection fee of Rs.33/- was got deposited by the employees of the respondent from the appellant. It was pleaded that the supply of electric energy was never discontinued by them to the appellant and the re-connection fee of Rs.33/- was adjusted against future liability of the appellant. The Forum accepted the case of the respondent and dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal by the complainant.

(2.) Although the learned Counsel for the respondent tried to satisfy us that it was simply a case of mistake of fact wherein a consumer had, on his own, deposited re-connection fee of Rs.33/- which was subsequently adjusted against his future liability, but we found ourselves unable to accept such lame version advanced by the respondent.

(3.) We have closely examined the material available on the record of the Forum. We find that it was on 23.12.1994 that the appellant had lodged his complaint with the respondent regarding non-receipt of the bill for the month of December, 1994. In para 2 of the complaint he had specifically pleaded that after making a complaint by him with the concerned officers of the respondent, a bill was supplied to him and he deposited the bill amount of Rs.265/- on the same day. This case is not controverted by the respondent by producing any counter affidavit of any of its employee. In para 3 of the complaint the appellant had specifically averred that again a bill for Rs.265/- for the same period of December, 1994 was raised against him and in order to protect his business of cycle repairing he had to immediately deposit the aforesaid amount also with the respondent. This version of the appellant is not also specifically disputed by the respondent. It was not denied before us that the appellant was made to pay the same amount of Rs.265/- once more. Then in Para 4 of the complaint it was stated that on 20.1.1995 the respondent had discontinued supply of electric energy to him and did not restore such supply despite his repeatedly attending to their officers. After having made repeated visits to their office the respondent directed him to deposit the re-connection fee of Rs.33/- which he duly deposited on 21.1.995 but still then the supply of electric energy was not restored to him till the date of filing of the complaint by him on 25.7.1995. This version is also not specifically denied by the respondent. In para 5 of the reply filed by the respondent it was averred that the appellant had deposited the re-connection fee of Rs.33/- of his own and the receipt clerk had received such amount in good faith. It was asserted that the connection of the appellant was never disconnected. This version can hardly be accepted. No consumer would make visit to the office of the respondent if no inconvenience has been caused to him by any act or conduct of the respondent. It has been admitted by the respondent in this para that they had charged the amount of Rs.265/- from the appellant twice, for the same consuming period of December, 1994. How was it that the respondent came to raise the bill twice for the same liability against the same consumer That itself was an act of negligence and rendering deficient service on the part of the respondent. Although the respondent had further averred that they had adjusted the amount paid in excess of his liability by the appellant but no such evidence was ever placed either before the Forum or before us.