STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 266 of 2019

1. South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. through Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bihta (Patna)

2. Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bihta (Patna)

3. Junior Electric Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bihta-2, (Patna)

4. Revenue Officer, Electric Supply Division, Bihta (Patna)

                                                                                                                                                            … Appellants

Versus

Arun Kumar Sharma, Son of Late Kuleshwar Sharma, Resident of Village- Raghopur, PO and PS- Bihta, District- Patna

                                                                                                                                                        …. Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Shrikant Sharan Singh

Counsel for the Respondent: None

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 20.04.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed by the South Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. for setting aside the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum, Patna in Complaint Case no. 540 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum has allowed the Complaint case and has directed appellants either to return or to adjust the amount charged from the complainant in form of electricity bill as well as DPS charges from November, 2004 to October, 2005 within two months failing which appellants will be liable to pay Rs. 50/- per day till compliance of order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant had taken a commercial electric connection from the appellant/South Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. in the year 2003 to run mill for earning his livelihood. In the Nov, 2004 the electric wire got broken as such there was no supply of electricity in the mill of complainant however, he was forced to pay the electricity bill calculated @2,750/- per month. He represented the assistant electricity engineer to condone the electricity dues for said period but it was not done. Complainant thereafter, on 30.05.2006 represented appellants to condone the interest as well as DPS but nothing happened.
3. It was further stated that from Nov, 2004 to Oct, 2005 complainant was charged 90 units whereas only 70 units were required to be charged as such appellants realized 20 units more per month from the complainant. Complainant represented to provide him corrected electricity bill but same was never provided nor his DPS was waived under the scheme and due to non payment of electricity bill his electric connection was disconnected on 11.05.2007 but inspite of his repeated representation to provide the correct bill and to waive the delay payment surcharge, no steps was taken by the appellant/Distribution company to redress his grievances.
4. Complainant filed a complaint case in the District Consumer Forum, Patna for restoration of electricity connection and to pay compensation for physical and mental harassment as well as to compensate the pecuniary loss suffered by complainant.
5. Notices were issued to the appellant and their counsel appeared and took time to file written statement but no written statement could be filed and the case was heard ex-parte.
6. The District Consumer Forum has held “ It goes without saying that aforesaid facts has been asserted by complainant on oath and there is no counter version of the opposite party hence, we have no option but to rely on the facts stated by the complainant which clearly discloses deficiency on the part of opposite parties.

For the reason stated above, we direct the opposite parties either to return or to adjust the amount charged from the complainant in form of electricity bill as well as D.P.S. charges from September, 2004 to 01.11.2005 within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite parties will pay Rs. 50/- per day for delay till the aforementioned order is complied”.

Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the aforesaid period of two months.”

7. The procedure as prescribed under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 mandates that even in ex-parte proceeding onus lies upon the complainant to establish his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence and only on account of non appearance of opposite parties the complaint case can not be allowed on the basis of averments made in the complaint petition. The pleadings/allegations made in complaint petition needs to be proved by oral/documentary evidence to be produced by the complainant even in ex-parte proceeding. In present case only on the basis of averments made in the complaint petition the District Consumer Forum has allowed the case in an ex-parte proceeding which is not permissible.
8. Notices were issued to the complainant but inspite of valid service of notice he has not appeared to contest the appeal as such appeal is being heard ex-parte.
9. It is submitted on behalf of counsel for the appellants that complainant was provided low tension industrial service (LTIS) connection. At the relevant time tariff applicable for LTIS category was 70 units per HP + Rs. 65/- per HP (fixed charge) per month. Complainant had LTIS connection for 8 HP so minimum monthly charge will be 8 HP×70 unit×7.15 (per unit) charge +8×65= Rs. 2,844/-. However, complainant was issued electricity bill of Rs. 2,750 only.  
10. It is further submitted that there is no evidence to show that electric wire of complainant was broken and complainant could not utilize electricity during said period.
11. The grievances with respect to D.P.S, it was submitted that vide office order no. 3288 dated 28.09.2006 one time settlement scheme was launched by Bihar State Electricity board in which D.P.S was waived and any consumer could deposit his electric energy dues without payment of D.P.S but complainant did not take advantage of this scheme.
12. Heard counsel for the appellants. From the materials available on record there is nothing to show that for the period from November, 2004 to October, 2005 complainant did not use electricity. The average bill charged for the period from November, 2004 to October, 2005 was as per applicable tariff. Delay payment surcharge was waived for all the consumers and they were asked to deposit electricity bill without DPS but complainant did not take advantage of waiver scheme of DPS and did not deposit the dues against energy charges.
13. For the reasons as stated above, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 27.07.2018 passed in Complaint Case no. 540 of 2007 by District Consumer Forum, Patna is set aside and the complaint case filed before District Consumer Forum, Patna is dismissed.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                                       (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                                       President

Md. Fariduzzama