(1.) -THIS appeal under Section 15 of C. P. Act, 1986 is directed against the impugned order dated 29. 10. 2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the 'district Forum' for short) in complaint No. 316/2006, whereby the complaint was allowed.
(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant No. 1 is occupying a shop on rent from the owner Shri Gore Lal Sahu and electricity connection is in the name of the owner. The complainant No. 1 had purchased an A. C. on 24. 4. 2006. On next day, while the A. C. was being fitted, the mechanic who was fitting the A. C. went for taking his meals and while the A. C. was not yet connected, investigation team from the O. P came to the premises of the complainants. As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant repeatedly told them that the A. C. only fitted to the wall but was yet to be connected with electricity and showed the receipt by means of which the A. C. was purchased but the opposite party made a false case under Section 135 of Electricity Act. The complainants made a complaint in this regard on 27. 4. 2006 to the Superintending Engineer, C. S. E. B. , Raipur. It was further averred in the complaint that the opposite party issued a demand note for a sum of Rs. 63,925 though the A. C. was not yet connected to the electric line. It was further averred that Section 135 of Electricity Act is not applicable in this matter and the complaint lodged by the opposite party with Amanaka Police Station, Raipur is also false and baseless. It was further averred that the complainant No. 1 deposited a sum of Rs. 22,000 on 28. 4. 2006 with regard to the demand note. It was prayed in the complaint that the demand note may be set aside and amount deposited by the complainant No. 1 towards said demand note may be adjusted in the subsequent bills. It was further averred that the opposite party threatened to disconnect the electricity connection hence complainant No. 1 deposited the sum of Rs. 22,400 vide cheque No. 719747 drawn on Dena Bank and thereafter again a sum of Rs. 20,175 was deposited on 13. 10. 2006. Hence a total sum of Rs. 64,575 was charged by the opposite parties by demand notes and hence committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
(3.) THE opposite party resisted the claim and averred in written version that only Shri Gore Lal Sahu is consumer of opposite party, as the connection was in his name, hence he was responsible for any irregularity with reference to the electricity connection. It was stated in the written verson that Shri Gore Lal Sahu never gave any information regarding purchase of A. C. or any dispute with regard to electricity connection. It was further averred that Shri Indradev Chaudhary never gave any intimation to the O. P regarding his intention to instal an A. C. The A. C was directly connected, as the electricity connection in name of Shri Gore Lal Sahu, was a single phase connection and 1. 5 ton A. C. of 2250 Watt could not be run on the single phase connection. Hence Shri Indradev Chaudhary got it connected to the line by-passing the meter. It was further averred that the averment of the complainant that the A. C was only fitted to the wall but not connected with electricity is totally false and baseless. It was further averred that during inspection, the Officer had switched on the A. C. in presence of Shri Santosh Kumar, representative of the complainant. Hence it was found that there was theft of energy and consequently demand note was issued. In such cases, the opposite party cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.