Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant is a consumer under opposite party consuming electricity through L.I.Point in order to irrigate his landed property where he used to raise crops.
4. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant has cleared arrears upto January, 2004 but the opposite party disconnected the power supply in February, 2004 for which he suffered huge loss. He requested the opposite party to correct the bill but all are in vain. Thereafter, complainant has filed the complaint.
5. The opposite party filed written statement stating therein that there was arrear of Rs. 1260/- against the complainant in the year 2002. However, there is outstanding of Rs. 1536/- against the complainant till January, 2004 and the complainant has paid the same. He again became defaulter in May, 2004 onwards. They have not charged any amount as it was rainy season. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
6. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum has passed the following order:-
xxxxx xxxxxx
“The complaint is allowed on contest in part.
- O.Ps are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation.
- O.Ps are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards harassment and mental agony along with a sum of Rs. 1000/- towards the cost of the litigation.
- The O.P.is directed to waive the claims made for the period when there was no power connection to the L.I.Point excluding the statutory dues as per law.
The compliance to the directions shall be made within two months from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by directing the opposite party to pay compensation with cost. According to him, there is no disconnection of power supply in February, 2004.Further it is submitted that after payment of arrear, there was reconnection of electricity supply from February, 2004 onwards. The allegations are baseless.
8. Considered the submission of the parties, perused the DFR and the impugned order.
9. It is admitted fact that the complainant has taken the power supply to his L.I.Point which is also admitted for which there was an agreement between the parties to pay electric charges on load factor basis at different tariff.
10. The complainant alleged that he has paid the arrear in January, 2004. In February, 2004 disconnection was made but the opposite party refuted such allegation.
11. It is settled principles in law that complainant has to prove his case and the deficiency on the part of the opposite party. It is clear from the materials produced by both the parties that after payment of arrears, power supply has been restored but the complainant submitted that in February, 2004, power supply was disconnected. On the other hand, the opposite party has averred that there is no disconnection of power supply in February, 2004. The opposite parties produced the bill which clearly shows that there was raising of bill in the month of February, 2004 to May, 2004. Such billing issued has not been denied by the complainant.
12. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party like disconnection of power of supply in February, 2004.
13. Learned District Forum while coming to the conclusion has not considered the material facts properly. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.
The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
