SURENDRANATH SONKIA Vs. M P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -HEARD.

(2.) BY the order impugned the Forum below has dismissed complaint of appellant seeking quashment of final order of assessment dated 18. 3. 2002 of respondent the M. P. State Electricity Board requiring appellant to pay Rs. 20,664 for the alleged illegal use of electricity. The appellant had a commercial 3 HP electric connection from the respondent for operating his welding machine. The assessment in question was made on the basis of an inspection allegedly carried out by the vigilance team of the respondent Board on 18. 3. 2002 when it is said that as against sanctioned load of 3 HP the appellant was found having connected load of more than 8 HP. 2a. At the outset it is seen that while the provisional assessment in terms of Rule 7. 2 was made on 18. 3. 2002 but the final assessment was also made on that very date. This was clearly in violation of the said rule which required that at least seven days' notice after preliminary assessment should be given to the appellant before making final assessment. No affidavit of any person who carried out the said inspection or in whose presence the inspection was carried out could be filed in evidence. Only affidavit of one Rajendra Kumar Jain, Junior Engineer of the respondent Board is filed. However, it is not clear from his affidavit that he was present at the time of the said inspection. The inspection note also does not carry his signature. The complainant has denied any of such inspection on oath. Under the circumstances, the burden was on the respondent Board to establish the said unauthorised use of power. Since the respondent failed to discharge its burden, the impugned demand deserved to be quashed.

(3.) THE Forum below has also dismissed the complaint on the ground that an earlier complaint filed by the appellant on the same cause of action was dismissed in default of his appearance and that his application for restoration was also similarly dismissed. When a case is dismissed in default of appearance of both the parties, the complainant has an option either to seek restoration or to file fresh complaint. Any such first complaint after such a dismissal was not barred in law. On this count also the dismissal of appellant's complaint was not proper.