Date : 04.12.2012.
Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
1. Appellant Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L. , who is original opponent has preferred this appeal challenging judgment and order dated 08.12.2006 passed by Dist.Forum, Beed in C.C.No.24/05. Present respondent is the original complainant.
2. The brief facts about complaint filed by respondent/org.complainant before the Forum are that he had obtained domestic electric connection on 14.2.2003 by depositing amount of Rs.6800/- as per quotation given by the appellant. That, his consumer number is 576010275317R and meter number is 9001025108. That, first electric bill as issued by appellant on 29.5.2003 for amount of Rs.760/- which was deposited by the respondent. That, in the said bill the units consumed were shown only 75 units. However, a note stating, the bill for 37 months shown as outstanding. That, further for the period from 21.10.03 to 20.12.2003 the bill for incorrect amount of Rs.27,000/- was issued showing the meter as faulty. That, inspite of presentation made to the appellant by respondent against the said bill, no action was taken and however the incorrect bill of Rs.27,790/- dated 18.3.2004, Rs.31,432/- dated 8.11.2004 and bill of Rs.32,120/- dated 17.11.2004 were issued. It was contended by respondent/org.complainant that since he obtained electric connection as on 14.10.2003 he was liable to pay the bills from that date onwards as per actual consumption only and not for the earlier period. However the appellant without giving any prior notice his electric supply was illegally disconnected on 29.3.2004. Hence he issued legal notice dated 14.2.2005. No action was taken by the appellant. It was also contended that due to disconnection of electric supply education of children was badly affected. Respondent/org.Complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant filed consumer complaint before Dist.Forum seeking direction to the appellant to pay him total compensation of Rs.2,32,500/- and also to restore his electric supply.
3. Appellant appeared before the Forum and contested the claim of the respondent through written version dated 23.2.2006. Appellant had admitted that respondent was consumer of appellant and that he had paid Rs.6800/- on 14.2.2003 as per quotation for new connection. It was further contended that respondent/org.complainant had already taken unauthorised connection long before. That, this unauthorised connection which was revealed during inspection of it`s squad and hence he was issued bill for 39 months for the amount of Rs.22,930/- during which 7846 were consumed and since, the same was not paid by respondent he went into arrears due to which his supply was disconnected as per rules and regulation. That, the said electric supply was restored on 16.4.2005 as per interim order passed by Dist.Forum. Thus it was contended that by issuing the disputed bills and also by disconnecting supply no deficiency in service can be said to have committed by appellant and complaint be dismissed.
4. Dist.Forum after perusal of the record and hearing the parties has partly allowed the complaint and directed appellant to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- for illegal disconnection of electric supply for 350 days at rate of Rs.100/- per day, Rs.20,000/- for the loss of education career of his children, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1500/- towards cost of complaint.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the District Forum present appeal is filed in this Commission on behalf of M.S.E.D.C.Ltd.
6. Appeal was posted for final hearing on 17.10.2012. Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale was present for appellant whereas Adv.Shri.D.M.Mane was present for respondent. We heard both the counsels at length and appeal was closed for order.
7. We have carefully gone through the material placed before us and also given anxious thoughts to the oral submission as advanced by both the learned counsels. It is not disputed by the appellant that respondent/org.complainant had deposited amount of Rs.6800/- as per quotation for new connection on 14.2.2003. It is further contended that respondent was already using electricity unauthorisely since about year 2000 and hence he was given bill of Rs.22,933/- for the month of June 2003 which included arrears of previous bill of 39 months on average basis. Said amount of arrears was continued to be included in further bills. That, since respondent did not pay these bills his electric supply was disconnected on 29.3.2004 without giving him any prior notice.
8. The question is why the appellant did not take any action against the alleged unauthorise use of electricity for such a long period prior of filing of application for new connection by the respondent, which is also observed by Forum below. Appellants have also not found given any notice to the respondent/complainant either before charging the said bills for earlier period for alleged unauthorise use of electricity or before disconnection of electricity. It is therefore apparent that the appellant has committed deficiency in service by issuing such bills of exorbitant amount without any proper justification and cogent evidence on record. Respondent was deprived of electric supply for about a year without having proved any guilt on his part which has badly affected on education of his children as well as his day to day life. Respondent has placed his application dated 1.3.2004 on record requesting appellant to cancel bill of Rs.27,000/- for December 2003 which was issued showing meter as faulty. However, his request was not paid any heed which compelled the respondent to file complaint before this Commission.
9. In view of above said facts and circumstances we find that Dist.Forum has rightly held appellant i.e. original opponent as liable to pay compensation by relying on “Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam & Ors. –Vs- Bodan Ram” reported in 2004(1) CPR 9(NC). We however of the view that when complainant was awarded compensation at Rs.100/- per day for the period of 350 days on non-supply of electricity, separate compensation for the loss of educational career at Rs.20,000/- is not warranted. Hence, we find it necessary to modify the order to this extent. Hence the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent of cancellation of directions for the payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards education loss. Rest of the order is confirmed.
3. No order as to cost of this appeal.
4. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
Pronounced on 04.12.2012.
