Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

1.      This appeal is filed by original complainant feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19/10/2011 passed by District Consumer Forum of Yavatmal in consumer case No.236/2010, by which the complaint is partly allowed.

2.      None for the appellant is present today for final hearing. Advocate Mr.S.L.Alaspurkar is present for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. We have heard the respondents advocate finally today. The appellant’s advocate already filed written notes of arguments which we have considered. We also perused entire record and proceedings of the appeal.

3.      It is seen that the complaint was filed by the appellant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.19,68,000/- for causing loss by the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3/respondents due to not restoring the electric supply by the respondents to oil mill of the appellant despite of paying the arrears of the electric bills. The appellant further claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.22,000/-.

4.      The respondents had opposed that complaint by filing their common reply. The sum and substance of their reply is that the appellant was irregular in payment of electric bills and that initially her electric supply was disconnected on 28/10/2005 for non payment of the arrears of that time. The said arrears were cleared by the appellant on 29/12/2006. Therefore electric supply was given on 06/01/2007 for 48 H.P. to appellant on her application. However again there were arrears of the electric bills and hence the electric supply was disconnected on 31/03/2008. The appellant cleared those arrears on 20/01/2009 i.e. after 10 months of the permanent disconnection of electric supply. She then filed an application on 07/10/2009 for providing new connection and she also gave the consent letter on 30/06/2010 and therefore the new electric connection was sanctioned on 07/08/2010 and she was asked to deposit security deposit of Rs.48,000/- with the other charges. But she insisted that her previous security deposit of Rs.48,000/- may be adjusted for giving the fresh connection. Thus according to respondents as the appellant did not cooperate with them by making the compliance as above, the electric supply was not restored to her.

5.      The District Consumer Forum below after hearing both parties and considering evidence brought on record found that the previous security deposit of Rs.48,000/- can be adjusted towards the security deposit for the fresh connection. Hence the District Forum below directed the respondents to adjust that amount of security deposit of Rs.48,000/- towards the new connection and to issue demand note to  appellant for interest and other amount as per law and the appellant shall deposit that amount within 15 days of the receipts of demand note and after deposit of that amount, the respondents shall provide new connection. The District Consumer Forum also directed respondents to pay compensation to Rs.2,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the appellant.

6.      However the District Consumer Forum below also found under impugned order that the appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that she suffered economic loss. The District Consumer Forum also observed under impugned order that the appellant has not explained as to on which basis she claimed compensation of Rs.19,68,000/-. Therefore the District Consumer Forum below declined to grant any such compensation for loss claimed by the appellant.

7.      Feeling aggrieved for non grant of above compensation for loss, this appeal is filed by the original complainant.

8.      The learned advocate of the appellant/original complainant in his written notes of argument mainly submitted that there is a violation of Section 56 of Electricity Act of 2003 for not restoring the electric connection despite payment of arrears of Rs.13,790/- on 20/01/2009 and that as the connection is not restored, the appellant suffered loss of Rs.20,00,000/-. Thus according to submission made in written notes of arguments filed by appellant’s advocate, the District Consumer Forum below failed to understand that the appellant suffered losses because of the defect by the respondents and hence appellant claimed compensation and damages in the complainant. He requested that said compensation may be awarded.

9.      The respondents advocate submitted that it is cleared from the material on record that the appellant did not cooperate with the respondents by making security deposit of Rs.48,000/- for new connection and by paying other charges as required under law for new connection and hence the appellant can not claim any such compensation and damages. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Jai Kumar ……..V/s……M.P.Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd., reported in  2017 NCJ 7 (NC). In that case it was found that the attitude of  complainant was not co-operative and his bonafide was to be considered to be doubted and hence he is not entitled to make any  claim from the Forum.

10.    It is found that no document was filed and no evidence was adduced before the Forum to show the actual loss incurred by the appellant for non restoration of the electric supply. Moreover we also find that the respondents wanted fresh security deposit of Rs.48,000/- for restoration of electric supply. Moreover they also wanted some other charges as required under law for restoration of electric supply. The appellant insisted that her earlier security deposit of Rs.48,000/- be adjusted towards security deposit for fresh connection. There is no terms and condition under the contract in between both parties or under the rules and regulations that for providing new connection, the previous security deposit will have to be adjusted. Therefore the appellant as of right can not claim that her previous security deposit of Rs.48,000/- ought to have been adjusted for providing new connection. Moreover, as per law, appellant is also required to provide additional charges for meter.

11.     It is also pertinent to note that the District Consumer Forum below has not only directed under impugned order that the respondents shall adjust Rs.48,000/- of the previous security deposit towards fresh connection but the appellant shall also pay additional amount as per demand note to the appellant.

12.    In our view, as certain additional amount is still required to be paid by the appellant to the respondent for getting new electric connection, and as the said additional amount is not paid by the appellant to the respondents, it can not be said that the respondents rendered deficient service to the appellant by not restoring electric supply.

13.    In our view, therefore merely by clearing the electricity dues,  no right can be claimed by the appellant for getting restored the electric supply particularly when the previous arrears were not cleared within six months of permanent disconnection and previous contract came to be terminated after lapse of six months as provided under circular 6.5 issued by the respondents and not disputed by the appellant.

14.    Thus we find that there is no error in the impugned order and it deserves to be confirmed in appeal. The appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed.

// ORDER //

I.       The appeal is dismissed.

II.      No order as to costs in the appeal.

 III.     Copy of this order be furnished to both parties free of

          cost.