M P ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. AMITABH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen from order dated 28.2.1997 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (For short 'district Forum'), Satna in Complaint No.38/94, by which the complaint was allowed with costs.

(2.) Appellant in his appeal has challenged the order of District Forum on grounds of taking a biased view of the case and relying on the evidence produced by respondent and at the same time ignoring the evidence of the Junior Engineer, who had filed affidavit in the case. They have further stated that meter reader had recorded that the meter had stopped and the premises were used for keeping goods for commercial purpose which provided the reason for checking and billing after verification, Appellant prayed for setting aside order of District Forum.

(3.) We have heard both the parties and have also perused the record of the case and also the impugned order of District Forum. We shall now consider whether the appellant was justified in billing for commercial use. As per complaint in District Forum and reply given by appellant in District Forum, it is clear that initially respondent was given connection of 10 H. P. for Industrial use on 13.1.1989. This was converted on the application of respondent to 3 H. P. for domestic use. Thereafter, nothing happened for 4 years except, as admitted by appellant the meter stopped working in July, 1992, January, 1993 and April, 1993. Meter reader continued to record meter not working; and yet appellant took no action to repair it but instead continued to send average bill. When meter was replaced in June, 1993, thereafter respondent was sent a huge bill on the grounds that electric connection was being used for commercial purpose. In the appeal, appellant has stated that meter reader reported that meter was not working but goods have been stored for commercial purpose, therefore, after verification, the respondent was billed for commercial purpose. District Forum has refused to believe this story and in our opinion rightly so. There is no document to demonstrate this verification. Against this as pointed out in their order by District Forum, there is an affidavit of respondent and evidence of two neighbours that no commercial activity was going on in respondent's house. We are therefore in complete agreement with the view taken by District Forum.