RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 980 of 2013

Dakshinanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,

Shahari Vidyut Vitran Khand-II through

Executive Engineer, Lal Diggi, Aligarh.       ….Appellant.

Versus

Ahmadurrahman Khan Sherwani,

S/o late Shri Mujiburrahman, R/o Super Market,

Dodapur Amin, Nishan, Aligarh.                …Respondent.

Present:-                                                   

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Mahesh Chand, Member.

Shri Deepak Mehrotra for the appellant.

The respondent in person.

Date  20.2.2017

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6.4.2013, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Aligarh in complaint case No.120 of 2012, the appellant Dakshinanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. has preferred the instant appeal. 

Facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had filed complaint case of 120 of 2012 before the District Forum, Aligarh on the ground that the appellant/OP were prejudiced with the complainant because he was not acceding to their illegal demands. The appellant/OP replaced his old meter with a new one but as in the new meter the reading was coming quite less, hence he asked the OP to correct the meter then he was told that he was to deposit Rs.17,796.00 in addition to the amount deposited with the bill of June, 2012. When he received

(2)

the bill on 18.6.2012 then he found that he was to deposit Rs.22,884.00 by 25.6.2012 as his electricity will be disconnected on 2.7.2012 but the OP disconnected the electricity connection on 18.6.2012 itself. Even though the complainant was given opportunity to deposit the bill by 25.6.2012 and the connection was to be disconnected on 2.7.2012 but still his connection was disconnected on 18.6.2012 and asked the OP to reconnect the connection but the same was not done and Rs.550.00 was illegally demanded and then only his connection was restored hence, for deficiency in service the case was filed in the Forum wherein the OP has filed the written statement mentioning therein that the appellant/OP Department replaced the old meter of the respondent/complainant by an electric meter no.TMO 809 and because of the electricity dues not paid by the complainant his connection was disconnected and for reconnection Rs.550.00 was deposited. The appellant/OP had not committed any deficiency in service. The ld. Forum after hearing the parties passed the impugned order on 6.4.2013 which is as under:-

"परिवाद स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षीगण से परिवादी 10,000.00 (दस हजार रूपये) मानसिक कष्‍ट के लिए 3,000.00 (तीन हजार रूपये) वाद व्‍यय तथा 550.00 (पांच सौ पचास रूपये) दिनांक 19.6.2012 से भुगतान की तिथि तक 6% वार्षिक ब्‍याज पाने के लिए अधिकारी है। विपक्षीगण को आदेशित किया जाता है कि उक्‍त धनराशि निर्णय की तिथि से 30 दिन के अन्‍दर परिवादी को भुगतान करे।"

          Feeling aggrieved with this order, this appeal has been preferred.

(3)

          The main grounds of the appeal are that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. The complainant had not deposited the amount of bills prior to June, 2012. In the bill dated 31.5.2012, the amount due was Rs.17,796.00 and the due date for payment was 25.5.2012 and the disconnection date was 31.5.2012 and hence, as the bill was not paid therefore, the disconnection was made on 18.6.2012. When the complainant paid the bill on 19.6.2012 his connection was restored. The appellant/OP had not committed any deficiency in service therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

          Heard the counsel for the appellant Shri Deepak Mehrotra and the respondent in person.

          In this case, it is to be ascertained as to whether the OP had committed any deficiency in service in disconnecting the electricity connection of the respondent, if so its consequences.

          It is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the respondent/complainant was not making payment of bills of his electricity connection and hence, a bill was sent to the respondent for making payment of Rs.17,796.00 by 25.5.2012 and if the bill was not paid till that date then the disconnection was to be made on 31.5.2012. Since the bill was not paid by even 31.5.2012 hence, the electricity connection was disconnected on 18.6.2012. Therefore, the appellant/OP had not committed any deficiency in service. On the contrary, it is vehemently argued by the respondent/complainant himself that he was sent bill dated 18.6.2012 for payment of Rs.5,087.50 alongwith the arrears of Rs.17,796.63 and in this bill the due date for

(4)

payment was 25.6.2012 and the disconnection date was given as 2.7.2012 but the OP disconnected the bill on 18.6.2012 itself, the date on which this bill was issued to him and before disconnection dated i.e. 2.7.2012 given in the bill, therefore, the OP did commit serious deficiency in service in disconnecting the connection on the date of bill itself and prior to the disconnection date.

          From the bill dated 18.6.2012 which is filed as annexure '2' by the respondent/complainant, it transpires that the respondent was sent a bill dated 18.6.2012 where the due date for payment of the bill was 25.6.2012 and the date of disconnection was shown as 2.7.2012 but astonishingly the electricity connection was disconnected on 18.6.2012 itself which is an admitted fact. There is no doubt that the respondent/complainant had not made payment of the bills but he had had opportunity to deposit the bill by 25.6.2012 and the connection could not and should not have been disconnected before 2.7.2012 but in the instant case the electricity disconnection has been made on the date of the bill issued on 18.6.2012, itself. In this regard, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that as earlier bill issued in May, 2012 remained unpaid where the disconnection date was shown as 31.5.2012 hence, the appellant had disconnected the electricity connection when this bill remained unpaid and accordingly, the disconnected was made on 18.6.2012 therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part but we fail to appreciate this arguments as the bill dated 18.6.2012 shows the disconnection date to be 2.7.2012 and therefore, the appellant/OP were bound by the dates

(4)

mentioned in the latest bill where the due date for payment was 25.6.2012 and the disconnection date was 2.7.2012, so disconnecting the connection before the disconnection date shown by themselves and that too on the date of bill date by the appellant/OP is surely the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP and therefore, the Forum below has rightly concluded that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP in disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant. However, on the next date i.e. 19.6.2012 that reconnection was done when the complainant deposited the entire amount due. Therefore, the compensation awarded to the complainant appears to be a little on the higher side and we find under the circumstances of the case, compensation of Rs.5,000.00 would have served the purpose. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be modified to the extent the amount of Rs.5,000.00 would be paid instead of Rs.10,000.00. Therefore,  the appeal deserves to be partly allowed.       

ORDER

The appeal is partly allowed with modification that amount of compensation of Rs.10,000.00 is reduced to Rs.5,000.00. Rest part of the order will remain as it is.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                 (Vijai Varma)                        (Mahesh Chand)

               Presiding Member                           Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.5

='mso-spacerun:yes'>               Presiding Member                           Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.5