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 complainant is a consumer under the opposite party. She was regularly paying the electrical charges, but suddenly in the month of February, 2005, she received a bill of Rs. 11,479/-. By getting such huge amount, she was surprised and requested the opposite party to replace a new meter but the opposite party without taking any action insisted the complainant to deposit the arrear bill amount. The complainant stopped running her Mill from June, 2005. Thereafter, huge arrear amount remained pending against the complainant. Finding no other way, the complainant filed the complaint petition.
4. The opposite party filed a written version stating that the complainant is a consumer under the opposite party and she was using the electricity for commercial purpose. After taking actual reading of the meter, she was issued a bill of Rs. 11,479/-. When the opposite party tried to install a new meter, the complainant did not co-operate. Therefore, they have disconnected the electric supply.
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“The complaint petition is allowed on contest without cost. The O.P. is directed herewith to replace a new meter and in case of necessity can test the old meter in an approved laboratory in presence of consumer. The O.P. to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service. All the above directions aand payments are to be carried out within three months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own cot of litigation.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by not going through the written version filed by the opposite party. It is also argued that the complainant was issued with a huge arrear bill, but the complainant did not pay the same. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts and rejected the complaint petition. Hence, the opposite party prayed for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submissions, perused the DFR including the impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant got an arrear bill of Rs. 11,479/- for the month of February, 2005. She was surprised by getting a huge amount of bill. It is only the allegation of the complainant that she has requested the opposite party to replace a new meter. Further it is admitted that the complainant has agreed for payment of the same on instalment basis. In spite of that, the opposite party disconnected the electric supply to which the complainant has challenged.
9. The opposite party submitted that the disconnection was made since the arrear bill amount was not paid. We also find that since the arrear amount bill was prepared on actual reading, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
10. We have gone through the arrear bill prepared and the same has been served on the complainant. The complainant can challenge the same subject to deposit of the arrear amount. Without deposit of such amount the case has been filed. The arrear payment should be made first and then the complaint can be filed.
11. In the instant case, learned District Forum without understanding the fact and law passed the impugned order.
We do not find any merit in the impugned order and the same is accordingly set aside.
12. The appeal stands allowed.
The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any, on proper identification.
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.
