GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. REKHABEN S JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from order dated 20.7.2002 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surendranagar in Consumer Dispute Complaint No.107 of 1994 directing the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB for short) to refund Rs.49,705.82 to the complainant with interest @ 12% p. a. from 24.6.1994 till payment and cost and compensation respectively in the sum of Rs.500/- and Rs.2,000/- to be paid within two months from the date of the order. Opponent GEB has subjected the aforesaid order to challenge in this appeal. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. We have gone through the impugned order.

(2.) It would appear that the complainant has been residing in the premises bearing No.66, Swastik Society at Surendranagar and having her Rachana Nursing Home/hospital on the ground floor thereof with two different electric connections, one for the Nursing Home/hospital and another for the residence. It would further appear that the complainant was regularly paying electricity bills and did not have any occasion to handle or tamper with the meters or their seals. The said meters along with seals remained the same as they were installed. It so happened that about a year before the day of the incident, the Dy. Engineer Mr. Bagadia had taken his wife to the complainant for consultation at around 9 O'clock at night. The complainant informed him that was not the time for consultation and an educated person should not go for such consultation at such point of time. The said engineer Mr. Bagadia got enraged and abused the complainant. Yet the complainant had given treatment to the wife of the said officer of the opponent GEB. In the background of these facts of the incident, the complainant alleged before the learned Forum that Mr. Bagadia had sent some technician of opponent GEB on 24.6.1994 at the complainant's premises. The said person had disturbed the meter and the seals thereon and immediately telephoned Mr. Bagadia who rushed to the site. The said Mr. Bagadia apprised the complainant about the incident that happened a year before that date and alleged that the seals of both the meters were tampered with. He also threatened the complainant that she should pay the amount stated by him failing which the electric power connection would be disconnected. He further threatened that even if the amount as suggested by him would be paid up, the electric connection would not be restored for a month if such an amount was not paid up on the same day. He finally stated to the complainant that he had filed caveat in the Court and Forum and the complainant would not get any injunction from any Court of Law against disconnection of electric supply. The complainant having been left in helpless condition, was compelled to pay Rs.44,676.37 under such circumstances for the electric connection of the nursing home/hospital and Rs.4,969.45 for the electric connection in respect of her residential premises. The complainant was afraid about her patients in the clinic being rendered in helpless condition with regard to their health. She had, therefore, no alternative except to pay up the amount of the additional bills and give signature in the prepared statements. The said officer also recovered Rs.25/- for each of the two connections by way of reconnection charges. Under such circumstances, the complainant approached the learned Forum for different reliefs.

(3.) The opponent GEB resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the Dy. Engineer Mr. Bagadia had the occasion to consult the complainant in respect of health of his wife about 1 years before the date of the written statement but he did not take his wife at 9 O'clock at night as alleged by the complainant and he did not have any exchange of words with the complainant on that occasion. He had in fact the occasion to go for checking of electric connection in question on 24.6.1994 and found that the seals of the meters were in disturbed condition. He opened the seals and found that the reading of the meter was reversed. He, therefore, levelled the charge of theft of electricity against the complainant. He denied the allegation with regard to alleged threatening given by him to the complainant. He has asserted that he gave bills as per the ABCD formula in accordance with Condition No.34 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity. He has asserted that the complainant would not be entitled to compensation as prayed for.