RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 2088 of 2015

1- Executive Engineer, EUDD, Govind Nagar, Kanpur.

2- Managing Director, KESCO, Kanpur.         .….Appellants.

Versus

Ram Swaroop s/o Munshi Lal, R/o 1315-B,

Kachchi Malin Basti, Govind Nagar, Kanpur.….Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.

Sri Isar Husain, counsel for the appellants.

Sri Alok Sinha for the respondent.

Date 13.6.2018

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 9.9.2015, passed by the District Forum, Kanpur Nagar in complaint case no.556 of 2014.

The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had applied for a domestic connection by depositing Rs.553.00 as fees and Rs.300.00 as security amount on 29.9.2003 but the complainant was not given the connection though he kept contacting the appellants/OPs. The complainant sent letters on 30.12.2004 and 20.2.2006 for giving the connection but no action was taken. In 2013, when the complainant’s neighbour was given a new connection then the complainant met the concerned Executive Engineer and asked him to provide connection as per his application dated 29.9.2003, then he was told that the old application was rejected and he should apply for a new connection. Hence, the complainant on 16.1.2014 applied for

(2)

a domestic connection by depositing Rs.2000.00 but he was again not given the connection and when he met the concerned Executive Engineer then he was told that a sum of Rs.120479.00 was due on him and it is only after depositing that amount that he would be given the connection. Thereafter, the complainant received a bill for a sum of Rs.120479.00 but as the complainant was not given any connection hence, he filed a complaint before the Forum below for cancellation of the demand notice and for compensation and for giving the electricity connection. Thereafter, notices issued to the OPs but none appeared. Thereafter, the ld. Forum passed the exparte order on 9.9.2015 as under:-

  "परिवादी का प्रस्‍तुत परिवाद विपक्षीगण के विरूद्व आंशिक एंव एकपक्षीय रूप से इस आशय से स्‍वीकार किया जाता है कि प्रस्‍तुत निर्णय पारित करने के 30 दिन के अन्‍दर विपक्षीगण परिवादी के निवास 1315 बी-कच्‍ची मलिन बस्‍ती गोविन्‍द नगर शहर व जिला कानपुर नगर में नियमानुसार विद्वयुत कनेक्‍शन व विद्वयुत आपूर्ति उपलब्‍ध कराये तथ परिवादी के उपरोक्‍त आवास से सम्‍बन्धित भेजे गये विद्वयुत बिल दिनांकित 9.3.14 बाबत रू01,20,479.00 एंव विद्वयुत बिल दिनांकित 26.8.14 बाबात रू01,24,801.00 निरस्‍त किये जाते हैं तथा तत्‍संबन्‍धी डिमाण्‍ड नाटिस भी निरस्‍त की जाती है।  विपक्षीगण परिवादी को रू05000.00 परिवाद व्‍यय भी अदा करें।"

          Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that this appeal has been filed mainly on the grounds that the complainant had applied for connection in the year 2003 whereas the complaint has been filed in the year 2014 after a lapse of 11 years but the respondent had not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. The connection no.45-K-2/022914 was energized on

(3)

29.9.2003 without meter as at the relevant time meters were not available in the department and as per the policy, the domestic connection could be released without meter subject to payment of 80 units per KW per month alongwith other tariff. As per billing details on fixed charges basis, the respondent was having the arrears of Rs.34911.00 upto November, 208 but the  respondent avoided making payment of the bills. Now the arrears have to gone upto Rs.143376.00 upto December, 2014. On the application of the respondent/ complainant an inspection was made by the JE, who had found that the respondent was consuming electricity supply from two black wires and that the JE had taken photographs of the cable from his mobile and had also examined the neighbours that the complainant was consuming the electricity supply. The complainant was defaulter but the ld. Forum has passed the order against the facts and evidence.    

          Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

          In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant had applied for a domestic connection on 29.9.2003. The disputed point according to the complainant is that he was not given connection despite the complainant contacting many a times in this regard with the OPs and when the complainant raised the issue with the OPs for giving him connection in the year 2003 then he was told by the appellants/OPs that his old application was rejected and he had to apply for new connection but when he applied for new connection on 16.1.2014 then again he was not given the connection and he was told that a sum of Rs.120479.00 was due against him and

(4)

it is only after payment of that amount that a new connection would be given. So according to the complainant, he was not given any connection and even though he did not consume any electricity still the OPs made an illegal demand of Rs.120479.00 and therefore, they committed deficiency in service whereas, according to the appellants the complainant was given the connection in 2003 itself and that he was consuming the electricity and therefore, the complainant was sent bill for Rs.120479.00 and they did not commit any deficiency in service in demanding the amount of consumption of electricity by the complainant and therefore, the ld. Forum erred in concluding the deficiency in service of the appellants/OPs.

          So now it is to be seen as to whether the appellants/OPs committed deficiency in service in not providing the connection to the complainant and in sending the bill of Rs120479.00 and the consequences thereof.

          It is a case where the complainant has applied for a domestic connection on 29.9.2003 by depositing the requisite fees and security amount and according to the complainant he was not given connection for years together. It is contended by the respondent/complainant that he has been raising the issue of not providing him the connection by the appellants/ OPs but they did not provide the connection and instead have made an illegal demand of Rs.120479.00. On the contrary, it is contended by the appellants/OPs that the complainant was given the connection in 2003 itself but as the meter was not available hence, the electricity charges were to be realized on fixed basis but as the complainant did not make payment of

(5)

electricity consumption despite sending of the bills, so a demand for Rs.120479.00 was made.

          While scrutinizing the matter, we find that the application for giving connection on 29.9.2003 was given by the complainant but when according to the complainant he was not given connection then he moved application on 30.12.2004 and thereafter, on 20.2.2006 for giving him the connection.

          Firstly, we find that there is no evidence to show that the applications dated 30.12.2004 and 20.2.2006 were infact given by the complainant to the OPs who received them. So, it is not proved that the aforesaid applications were actually given by the complainant to the OPs. Secondly, if it is presumed that such applications were given then a question arises as to why the complainant who moves applications after a gap of year or so, does not raise the issue after 20.2.2006 and keeps mum for years together when allegedly the electricity was not given to him. It does not stand to reason that a person applying for domestic connection, will not be raising the issue for years together and then suddenly will apply for a new connection by depositing the requisite fee of Rs.2000.00.

          Now, here an explanation has been provided from the side of the complainant that it is only when his neighbour was given a connection therefore, he raised the issue with the appellants/OPs for providing him connection, as is evident from a letter allegedly written on 6.4.2014 by the complainant where it is mentioned that when the last year a connection was given to his neighbour then he contacted the divisional

(6)

office for giving him connection on the basis of an application moved by him in the year 2003 and it is only then that he was told that his earlier application was rejected and now he would have to apply afresh and it is only when he applied for a new connection on 16.1.2014 but he was not again given the connection and when he tried to know as to why the connection was not given then he was told that a sum of Rs.120479.00 was due against him. It is interesting to note that a connection was given on 15.2.2013 to his neighbour’s house no.1320 in the name of Shir Jai Shankar Mishra, so why the complainant remained silent about a year for applying for a new connection. It appears that a story has been cooked up by the complainant for not making payment of the bills for the electricity consumed by him, as it is unbelievable as also inconceivable that a person in a city area of Govind Nagar, Kanpur will apply for domestic connection and thereafter, will be living without electricity for as many as 11 years. It is interesting also to note that he has prayed in the complaint for providing him the connection in addition to setting aside of the bill demanded by the OPs. Obviously, the complaint could have been filed after a lapse of year after arising of the cause of action.   

          Here the complainant taking flimsy grounds such as cable being damaged or the house being 40 meters away from the pole, sits calmly over the issue of not providing him the connection which as mentioned above is totally incomprehensible. Interestingly, the complainant applied for new connection knowing fully well that he had already applied for a connection in the year 2003 and that he deserves

(7)

to get the connection on the basis of earlier application. The ld. Counsel for the appellants has argued that book number, connection number were being shown in the bill sent to the complainant. It is also argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that there was arrear of Rs.34911.00 in November, 2008 which swelled to Rs.143376.00 till December, 2014. It has further argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that the electricity bills were being sent on the basis of fixed charges and that the complainant wanted to take a new connection so that he may not have to pay the arrears arising out of earlier connection given to him.

          A report was also given at the time of permanent connection where it has been clearly mentioned that the complainant was using electricity by two black wires and that even the neighhours verified that the complainant was using the electricity.

          Under the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the complainant was using the electricity since 2003 but as the meter was not installed therefore, he was liable to make payment on the basis of fixed charges. As he did not make payment of bills therefore, a demand of Rs.120479.00 was made by the appellants/OPs. Hence, the appellants do not appear to have committed any deficiency in service. The ld. Forum below has erred in passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside and the complaint dismissed. The appeal deserves to be allowed.         

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 9.9.2015, passed by the District Forum, Kanpur

(8)

Nagar in complaint case no.556 of 2014 is set aside and the complaint dismissed.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (Vijai Varma)                       (Raj Kamal Gupta)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.2