ELECTRICAL REVENUE OFFICER Vs. KOLLU JAYARAMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may briefly be stated as follows: The complainant's father is having an agricultural service connection SC No.30 at Nandameedi Kammapalli. According to the complainant, no arrears of electricity charges are due with regard to the said service connection. While so, the complainant received a notice some time in 1987 stating that he has to pay a penalty of Rs.876. /-. To the said provisional assessment notice, the complainant sent a reply stating that he is not liable to pay. According to the complainant, again in 1989 notices were issued for payment of the amount. Thereafter he enquired with the Electrical Revenue Officer and he was informed that in 1985 there was some dis-connection for non-payment of electric bills for a period of three months. Alleging that the power supply was never dis-connected in 1985 and that, there were no arrears payable by him, and that therefore, the dis-connection affected in January, 1990 is arbitrary and without any basis, the above consumer dispute is filed for compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant also claimed that a direction may be given to re-connect the power supply pending the consumer dispute, but it appears that no orders were passed.

(2.) After receiving the complaint, the District Forum issued notice to the respondent on 17.3.1990 returnable by 21.04.1990. In the said notice, it was mentioned that the opposite party shall file his objections either in person or in writting and the opposite party was also asked to file the other records, if any, in their possession. To the said notice, which directed the opposite party to file their statement or objections and produce the necessary documents, the opposite party sent a reply on 7.4.1990 along with the statement mentioning that earlier the power connection to the agricultural service No.30 was dis-connected on 20.4.1985 and a provisional notice was issued on 8.5.1985 alleging the energy was illegally abstracted. It was further stated that final assessment was made. As there was no representation from the complainant to the show cause notice, final order was passed on 28.3.1989. As the complainant failed to pay the said amount of Rs.876/- with re-connection charges, the service was dis-connected in January, 1990. This statement was received by the District Forum on 10.4.1990. But the District Forum without any reference to the statement and without adverting to its contents, disposed of the consumer dispute, on the merits, as the opposite party remained absent, awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

(3.) In this appeal, it is firstly submitted that in the notice dated 17.3.1990, the opposite party was only asked to submit a statement. Accordingly, the opposite party sent the statement on 7.4.1990 which was received by the District Forum on 10.4.1990. According to the Counsel, they are awaiting receiving of further date of hearing to contest the matter. Since they have not received any notice, they were under the impression that the matter has not been decided, until they saw a news item stating that Rs.5,000/- compensation has been awarded against them. On making enquires in the District Forums the opposite parties came to know that the District Forum gave notice of hearing only to the complainant and not to the opposite party.