BALBIR SINGH SABHARWAL Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant has come up in appeal against the order dated 5th April 1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Ambala, whereby his complaint against the Haryana State Electricity Board for claiming damages on account of alleged deficiency in service on their part has been dismissed with costs. In fact the complainant had also filed a similar complaint earlier, which was decided on 31st May, 1995 by the learned District Forum, Ambala by which the H. S. E. B. was directed to restore the electricity connection by issuing the revised bill after deducting an amount of Rs.136/and also awarded Rs.500/by way of compensation. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint challenging the electricity bills received by him on 12th June, 1995 amounting to Rs.1421/on the ground that even though he has not consumed any electricity during this period, the bill has still been sent to him. In their reply, the Electricity Board pleaded that the bill in question was based on actual consumption of electricity duly recorded by the meter and also pleaded that the complaint is frivolous and the same should be dismissed with heavy costs.

(2.) During the course of trial the complainant filed his own affidavit and was also cross examined by the learned Counsel for the H. S. E. B. In rebuttal, the opposite party produced Upper Division dark of H. S. E. B. Prem Chand Saini, who also filed his affidavit. However the complainant did not cross-examine him even though an opportunity was given to him for the purpose. After considering the matter in detail the learned District Forum came to the conclusion, that the complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that he had not made the payment of any bill after October, 1994 nor did he permit the meter reader to have the meter reading as he was not possessed of any proper authority letter. Regarding the payment of the bills, the complainant stated that he did not pay any amount as the bills were not duly signed and authenticated but only computerised. However, when during the course of trial the learned District Forum directed him to pay the bill handed over to him in the Forum, he did not pay that bill either. In view of these circumstances, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint by concluding as under: "the aforesaid position clearly depicts that the conduct of the complainant has not been fair as a consumer of electricity because he has not been allowing the meter reader to take the meter reading and has also not been making the payment of the bills despite the fact that a bill was given to him before this Forum. In these circumstances we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the directions sought for by the complainant cannot be given to the opposite party. For the reasons recorded above the complaint fails and the same is dismissed with costs which is assessed to be Rs.200/-. "

(3.) In the appeal before us, the complainant who appears in person has reiterated his stand taken in the memorandum of appeal and argued before the District Forum. In addition, he also brought to our notice judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as AIR 1996 SC 2508, wherein it has been authoritatively held by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that parties to a contract are bound by terms of a contract and for the breach thereof, the damages could be awarded as amounted to deficiency in service. After hearing the complainant appellant we are not satisfied that any support can be drawn by him by citing the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under the circum-1 stances, we are satisfied that no legal infirmity has been brought to our notice on the basis whereof the decision of the learned District Forum could be set aside. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.