(Delivered on 27/09/2017)
PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
1. This appeal is filed by the original opposite party ( for short O.P.) Nos. 1&2 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08/09/2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gondia in consumer complaint No. 09/2006, by which the following directions have been given.
“i. The complaint is allowed.
ii. It is hereby declared that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opponents by intending to disconnect service line bearing No. 430010166173 & 430010034919. The opponents are hereby restrained from disconnecting these two service lines.
iii. The opponents are hereby directed to pay cost of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant.
iv. The amount of cost shall be paid within a period of one month from today”.
2. We have heard today the advocate of the appellant and perused the entire record of the appeal. In pursuance of the notice served to the original complainant /respondent herein , advocate Mr. S.K. Das had appeared for the respondent and filed an application on 13/01/2017 under his signature and signature of the respondent. He had prayed in that application to direct the appellant to supply appeal compilation to the respondent. Accordingly, the appellant’s advocate furnished on record entire record of appeal compilation. However, none appeared for the respondent on subsequent four dates of hearing i.e. on 27/02/2017, 03/04/2017, 27/06/2017 & 09/08/2017 to receive the said appeal compilation. Moreover, the respondent has not filed written notes of argument though direction was given from time to time to the respondent to file the same. None appeared for the respondent today also. Therefore, after hearing appellant’s advocate we proceeded to decide the appeal on merit.
3. The learned advocate of the appellant has relied on the decision in the following cases in support of his submission that the District Consumer Forum, erred in partly allowing the complaint on the ground that the demand bill of Rs. 2,97,660/- pertaining another connection i.e consumer No. 430010016945 is time barred and therefore, it cannot be acted upon and the result is that there were no arrears or dues and if it is so then there is no question to disconnect other two electric lines of the complainant. According to the learned advocate of the appellant, it is now well settled law that as per provisions of section 56(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 there is no limitation provided for disconnection of electric supply. He also argued that as per said provisions the appellant has got right to disconnect any other electric connection of a consumer when there are some arrears against any one connection of the same consumer.
4. The learned advocate of the appellant also submitted that the findings of the District Consumer Forum is as against the well settled law and therefore it may be set aside by allowing the appeal. The decision relied by the learned advocate of the appellant are as follows.
i. Swastic Industries Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, 1997 DGLS(Soft) 102.
ii. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. Yatish Sharma and others, 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 314
iii. M/s. Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and another, AIR 1978, Bombay 369
iv. S.M. Amarchand Sowcar (died) and other Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another, 1999 (3) CCC 41 (Mad.)
v. MSEDCL Vs. Ramkrushna Laxman Vaidya in first Appeal No. A/07/709 decided by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit Bench.
vi. Shri Bapurao Mahadeorao Patmase Vs. The Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. and other in First Appeal No. 867/2002 decided by the decided by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai on 01/02/2006.
vii. M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Akhta Bi, II (2005) CPJ 221
viii. Assistant Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Bai Wd/o. Bhaurao Khandar, in First Appeal No. A/07/148 decided by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit Bench on 25/11/2016.
ix. M/s. Swastic Industries Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1101.
5. We have gone through the aforesaid decisions. We find substance in aforesaid submission of the learned advocate of the appellant. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions in brief is that under section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act,1910 the Electricity Board can disconnect the electricity of its consumer for non payment of dues through they are time barred. Moreover, Electricity Board has power to disconnect electric service connection of any of the service connection of its consumer for non payment of arrears as against another electric connection of the same consumer.
6. Moreover, section 56 (1) & (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 also provides right to the appellant to disconnect any other electric connection of a consumer when there are arrears against any one connection of the same consumer.
7. It is also pertinent to note that the copy of the Consumer Personal Ledger (CPL) produced by the appellant on record shows that arrears were continuously shown as recoverable from the respondent till the month of March-2006 as against the connection No. 430010016945 amounting to Rs. 2,97.660/-.
8. We find that in view of the aforesaid settled law, the appellant have got right to disconnect the other two live connections which are given in the name of the father of the complainant particularly when dues were against other connection given to the father of the complainant.
9. We therefore, hold that the finding of the District Consumer Forum, that there is bar of limitation for disconnection of electric supply, cannot be sustained in law. Hence , the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order is set aside and complaint stands dismissed.
iii. No order as to costs in this appeal.
iv. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.
