Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No.1836 of 2013

Executive Engineer/Prescribed Authority,

Pachimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,

Electricity Distribution Division, Baghpat.         …Appellant.                                                                         

Jagbir s/o Jaibeer aged about 48 years,

R/o Village, Khaspur, District, Baghpat.         …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.

Sri Isar Husain, Advocate for appellant.

Sri Vikas Agarwal, Advocate for respondent.

Date 13.7.2023

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 7.5.2013 passed by the District Forum, Baghpat in complaint case no.67 of 2011.

          The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the impugned judgment and order illegal, unjust, arbitrary and non-speaking. The respondent filed a complaint in 2011. The respondent alleged that after the death of his father, he performed all required formalities for mutation but it is wrong. The respondent also alleged that he deposited the dues and last payment was made on 27.2.2010 for reconnection charges but it is not true. The respondent made a story to make up false and fabricated case alleging that the connection was not re stored. The date of deposit of alleged reconnection fees is 27.2.2010 while the date of alleged affidavit is 14.3.2011 after a lapse of about more than one year and no reason shown as to why the respondent kept mum for about one year.

          The respondent did not disclose any fact of detailed consumption of electricity and as to how many disconnections for the period made by the appellant, no proof of disconnection filed by the respondent. The appellant specifically informed the ld. District Forum that he connection has been disconnected permanently vide office memorandum dated 31.10.2002  against total outstanding arrears of Rs.2,79,538.00 and as per report of the Junior Engineer, supply of the respondent was disconnected against the dues on 28.2.2002. Since no prayer for reconnection received in the office of the appellant, the appellant made the connection permanently disconnected and the agreement with deceased connection holder terminated with OM no.5286 dated 31.10.2002.

          The ld. District Forum failed to appreciate that the respondent disclosed the date of death through affidavit dated 17.5.2012 stating therein that his father expired on 20.1.2003 leaving behind the connection, the respondent mentioned the name of his brothers, Mahavit, Rajendra and Bijendra with the statement of fact that all other brothers have no objection in mutating the connection in the name of the respondent but there was no consent obtained by the respondent and the respondent admitted in OTS form dated 2.10.2010  that the connection is disconnected against the dues and only the payment due was to be paid to the appellant, the respondent deposited previous bills in OTS scheme. The direction of the ld. District Forum for reconnection is wrong and not maintainable.  Hence, it is most humbly prayed that the

appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order be set aside.  

We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant Sri Isar Husain and ld. counsel for the respondent Sri Vikas Agarwal. We have perused all the pleadings, evidence and documents present on record.

We have seen the impugned judgment of the ld. District Forum.

          The complainant applied for OTS and he deposited Rs.1 lac on 30.9.2008 and Rs.23,000.00 on 10.10.2008. He also deposited Rs.1,000.00 and also deposited the rest amount of Rs.1,09,049.00. He also deposited Rs.550.00 on 27.2.2010 for reconnection of the electric connection. The ld. District Forum came to the conclusion that no amount is due and the opposite party has disconnected the electric connection illegally. Therefore, the ld. District Forum directed the opposite party to register the name of the complaint and reconnect the electric connection and also imposed Rs.5,000.00 as costs. There is no illegality in the judgment but as far as the cost is concerned, we are of the opinion that it would be Rs.1,000.00 in place of Rs.5,000.00. Rest of the judgment is liable to be confirmed. The appeal is decided accordingly.    

ORDER

The appeal is allowed partially. The impugned judgment and order is modified to this extent that the cost is reduced to Rs.1,000.00 in place of Rs.5,000.00. Rest of the judgment is confirmed.

If any amount is deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission for satisfying the decree as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

       (Vikas Saxena)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                    Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Vikas Saxena)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                    Presiding Member

Dated  13.7.2023

Jafri, PA I

Court 2