M P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -BOTH these Appeals No. 1107/2005 by opposite party No. 1136/2005 by complainant heard as connected matters, arise from the order dated 13. 5. 2005 passed in C. C. No. 103/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajgarh, quashing all the electricity bills issued after March 2000, but with liberty to the opposite party-Board to issue fresh corrected bills after taking into consideration the objections raised by complainant-consumer. A further sum of Rs. 5,000, besides cost of Rs. 500, has been awarded by way of compensation for wrongful disconnection of complainant's power supply.

(2.) COMPLAINANT had industrial power connection from opposite party-Board for his Dal Mill. It appears that the complainant was not able to operate his Dal Mill and not consuming the power and so he was being charged on the basis of minimum consumption. The dispute initially started with regard to the rate at which the complainant was being charged on minimum consumption basis. However, this dispute which continued till February, 2000 was resolved in March 2000 when as against a total demand of Rs. 10,023 a credit of Rs. 3,960 was given to him leaving the balance amount Rs. 6,063 which the complainant paid on 31st March, 2000. However in the bill issued on 18. 4. 2000 the said amount of Rs. 3,960 which was earlier given credit, was again shown as due and after levying surcharge a fresh bill for a total sum of Rs. 5,209 was raised against the complainant. On his representation, this amount was reduced to Rs. 1,249 which the complainant paid on 23. 4. 2000. But, again in the bill of the month of May 2000 a sum of Rs. 4,022 was shown as previous arrears and a total bill of Rs. 5,510 was raised against him. However, the mistake was later on rectified and the demand was reduced to Rs. 1,128 which was paid by the complainant on 12. 6. 2000. The dispute did not end as the opposite party-Board again in the bill dated 24. 6. 2000 added the amount of this previous bill as arrears, thus making a demand of Rs. 6,436. It appears that the complainant thereafter stopped making any payment and as such his electric connection was severed. According to the complainant it was disconnected in June 2000, while according to the opposite party-Board it was disconnected temporarily in November 2000. It appears that the bills were thereafter raised on the basis of minimum consumption until February 2002 when the power supply of the complainant was disconnected permanently. However, in the meantime the complainant approached the Forum below and filed complaint against opposite party-Board on 8. 10. 2001 claiming compensation Rs. 4,70,000 for wrongful disconnection and consequent loss in his business. The opposite party-Board resisted the complaint and it was contended that the complainant had been a regular defaulter and that his power supply was disconnected on account of his failure to pay the electricity charges. The Forum below allowed the complaint in part and passed the order as aforesaid, thus giving rise to these appeals.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Deepesh Joshi, learned Counsel for complainant and Mr. S. N. Rao, learned Counsel for opposite party.