BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD
FA 651/2007 against C.C. 234/2007, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad
Between:
1) The Asst. Engineer
APCPDCL, Chandrayanagutta
Hyderabad.
2) The Asst. Divisional Engineer
APCPDCL,Falaknuma, Hyderabad *** Appellants/
O.Ps.
And
Haroon Rasheed
S/o. B. Akbar Saheb
Age: 32 years, Physician
H.No. 18-12-418/A/11/A
Hafez Baba Nagar
Hyderabad. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. O. Manohar Reddy
Counsel for the Resps: M/s. Mohd. Muneeruddin.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party electricity board against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to restore electric supply to the Service Connection of the complainant besides payment of compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a consumer of Service Connection No. V3-24485 supplied by the appellant to his rented premises. He had taken it on lease from the owner Mr. Munawar Ali Khan from 1.1.2005. He is running a poly clinic. He had been regularly paying the monthly bills. For the latest bill Dt. 9.2.2007 for Rs. 640/- was received by him on 12.2.2007 and he paid the amount on the same day. There were no arrears. While so, the appellants had disconnected the electricity supply on 26.2.2007 without any notice. There were no arrears. Due to unwarranted disconnection he could not run his poly clinic. He became unemployed. Despite his oral and written requests it was not restored. Therefore he filed the complaint to direct the appellants to restore the electricity supply and pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss or earnings and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.
3) The appellants did not choose to contest and therefore they were set-exparte.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A3 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the disconnection was made without any reason or without issuing notice amounting to deficiency in service and therefore directed the appellants to restore the electricity supply immediately besides pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that they were entitled to disconnect any linked service standing in the name of same consumer. Sri Munwar Ali Khan, owner had committed default in payment of other service connections Nos. V-40650, V3-24485, V3-24484, V3-24488 and V3-24489 in his name.
An amount of Rs.5,046/- was due for the service connection No. V-40650. At any rate the complainant is not a registered consumer. Despite the fact that it had disconnected the others service connections, none of them had questioned. The disconnection was just. The order to pay compensation was unjust.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is a tenant in the premises belonging to Mr. Munwar Ali Khan. The complainant is running a Poly clinic in the premises for which electricity supply bearing S.C. No. V3-24485 was provided. While the complainant alleges that despite the fact that he has been paying the bills regularly electricity supply was disconnected on 26.2.2007. To substantiate the said fact he filed Ex. A1 bill, Ex. A2 receipt and Ex. A3 complaint Dt. 1.3.2007.
9) Evidently the appellants did not choose to contest, and in fact no reason whatsoever was mentioned as to why it could not contest the matter. Obviously when they received a copy of the order wherein they were directed to pay compensation and costs they preferred the appeal. The appellants alleged that the owner Mr. Munwar Ali Khan was having several service connections bearing Nos. V-40650, V3-24485, V3-24484, V3-24488 and V3-24489. For one of the service connections bearing No. V-40650 a sum of Rs. 5,046/- was due towards electricity supply and by virtue of Section-56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with 8.3.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of supply, it had every authority to disconnect the supply for non-payment of electricity bills by a registered consumer.
10) During the hearing of the appeal, the appellant filed additional evidence Ex. B1 to show that it has issued notice prior of disconnection. The very complainant had acknowledged the receipt of notice. It is unfortunate that the complainant did not choose to file counter either admitting his signature or receipt of the notice. The fact remains that the complainant was informed on 20.2.2007 that his service connection would be disconnected if the payment is not made within 24 hours from the date of receipt of notice. His service connection No. V3-24485 is noted against S.No. 1 in the premises belonging to his house owner showing that he was due Rs. 5,046/- against S.C. No. V-40650. since the Dist. Forum was not informed about the service of notice prior to disconnection giving an opportunity to the complainant to represent, the Dist. Forum had allowed the complaint. When the appellant did not contest, they cannot turn round and contend that the Dist. Forum went wrong in observing that there was deficiency in service on its part. Since in the appeal the appellant has been coming up with a notice which was admittedly served on the complainant and suppressing the said fact he had obtained the order. We feel an opportunity has to be given to both sides to project their defence. The authority of the appellant to disconnect the supply of the tenants on failure to pay the bills for some other connection belonging to the owner has to be gone into particularly by virtue of Section-56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with 8.3.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of supply. Considering the additional evidence that was let in and as there was no contrary evidence that was placed by the complainant in this regard, we are of the opinion that both parties have to be given an opportunity to let in evidence. Equally the appellant did not file its written version in order to appreciate its contentions. We are of the opinion that this matter requires re-consideration by the Dist. Forum by giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence.
11) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. The matter is relegated to Dist. Forum and both parties are directed to appear before the Dist. Forum on 19.1.2010 without insisting for fresh notice. The appellant is directed to file written version on the said day. The Dist. Forum is directed to give opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence by way of affidavits or documents and dispose of the matter as per law. In the circumstances no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 23. 12. 2009.
*pnr
“UPLOAD – O.K.”
