Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant, is that complainant is the proprietress of Jayashree Automobile Garage and carrying on business in dealing with maintenance and repair of the vehicles for earning her livelihood. The complainant made deposit of Rs.4780/- to get electric connection for her business premises and accordingly it was also given. She was also paying the consumption charges regularly. But she received a bill raising the amount of Rs.1,01,201.75 payable after November,2003 within seven days failing which electric line will be disconnected. The complainant objected to such bill because there was no arrear against her. Since, the OP did not take any step for waiver of such erroneous bill, the complaint case was filed.
4. Per contra, the OP filed written version stating that the husband of the complainant had motor garage in the name and style M/s. D.P. Motors and he has taken another electric connection to said garage with a connected load of 5.5 KW under commercial category. Her husband did not pay the arrear and there was outstanding of Rs.1,00,777.20 by end of January,2002 against the husband of the complainant. It is averred that the husband of the complainant has started business at Laxmisagar area in the name & style Jayashree Automobiles represented by the complainant and thereby took a new electric connection for 3 KW under commercial category. During the application for new connection, complainant had suppressed the material facts of the outstanding dues. Since, the new connection has been taken by the complainant by suppressing the material fact as stated above, and the husband of the complainant did not pay the electricity dues, there was notice of disconnection. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“In the result, the complaint is allowed on contest. The OPs are hereby permanently restrained from collecting the sum of Rs.1,01,201.75 from the complainant. The bill raised under Annexure-3 is hereby waived. The OPs are liable to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant for issuing such bill and the notice of disconnection. The litigation cost is assessed at Rs.500/-. The aforesaid sum be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of communication of this order.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not perusing the written version with proper perspectives. According to him the wife should clear the arrear of the husband and according to OERC Code,1998 before giving the electric connection the arrear outstanding against any of the family members of the appellant should be verified and accordingly complainant was issued arrear bill. However, he submitted that the impugned order is illegal and improper for which it should be set-aside by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. Admittedly there are two electric connection, one in the name of the husband of the complainant and another connection in the name of the complainant as available from DFR. Two different connections have been taken in two different places. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has already taken power supply to her Jayashree Motor garage and she has also paying the dues. It is only dispute arises with regard to another electric connection taken by the husband of the complainant.
9. It is alleged by the OP that there was outstanding against the complainant for the motor garage she has owned for which she was issued the bill of Rs.1,01.201.75 vide Annexure-III. She stated that she was surprised to find out same because she has been paying the electric dues every month for her garage. The OP claimed that the electric connection has been given for 2nd time due to suppression of material facts by the complainant. But before the electric line given it was duty of the OP to verify same and then allow the electric connection.
10. From the above discussion, we are of the view that since complainant being wife has obtained electric connection, it is for she to deal the matter independently in view of the fact in two locations, two electric line has been extended. Even if wife is the beneficiary of the electric connection taken in the name of the husband, but during life time of the husband is to pay the arrear. There is provision U/S-10 of OERC Code,1998 to direct the consumer to pay the arrear dues lying in favour of father or grandfather and then parties can avail the electricity.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the amount outstanding against husband of the complainant cannot be saddled with the complainant who is wife of Prafulla Ojha against which arrear is outstanding.
12. Therefore, learned District Forum has not committed any error in allowing complaint. So, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is confirmed. So, the appeal sans merit and deserves no consideration. Accordingly it is dismissed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
