The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainant is a cultivator by profession and BPL card holder. He took electric connection on 12.01.06 with OP vide Consumer No.TKM-27 and Meter No.046801. He used the said electric connection for his agricultural purpose along with his dwelling house. On 05.01.07 fire took at the main pole and thereby electric connection in the house of the complainant was disconnected. He informed the matter to SDO, Dibrugarh Electrical Sub-Division No.1 on 06.01.07 and requested him to reconnect his electric connection at his house after repairing the electric post. The complainant had also paid  last bill amount of Rs.342.70/- on 15.09.06 vide Bill No.7491. But in spite of his request the OP did not reconnect his electricity.  The complainant time and again vide letter dated 29.04.08, 31.01.11, 10.06.11, 07.02.12 requested the OP to reconnect electricity in his house but all were in vain in spite of repeated request.  The OP were sending the bill to the  complainant though his electric connection was disconnected from 05.01.07. The OP even after repeated request to rectify the electric connection in the pole and thereby to reconnect his electric connection but the OP did not take any step which amount to extreme deficiency in service and dereliction in duty. As such,  the complainant suffered a lot of irreparable loss from his agricultural field, in convenience to his school going children and their study due to disconnection of electricity supply for about five years nine months and thus he sustained loss of Rs.4,66320/-. The complainant suffered irreparable loss, inconvenience and unnecessary harassment for not connecting the electricity. As such, he prayed to restore his electric connection, after restoring to send regular correct bill and pay compensation for which he is entitled to and cost of the litigation.

           After registering the case notices were issued to the OP who submitted written statement stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is stated by the OP that in terms of the statutory provision of Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission’s terms and conditions as well as the Electricity Act, 2003 the complainant is required to pay all his outstanding due and further he is also required to supply the service connection materials and other accessories in case he wants restoration of electric supply. But the complainant neither paid the outstanding dues nor he has supplied the materials to the OP for reconnection of the line and as such, the OP is not in a position to restore supply of electricity to his premises. Since the complainant has neglected to pay the just and legitimate dues of the OP’s bill the OP has regularly  been servicing  the bills along with the surcharge on the outstanding dues and the complainant is statutorily liable to pay the same. It is further stated that even if any dispute arise in regards to the bill amount, the complainant is statutorily liable to pay the amount of the bill and simultaneously to inform the authority in writing about the alleged error then the OP shall verify the alleged disputed bill if the complainant pays the bill amount. But the contradictory to or in violation of the statutory provision neglected to pay the same and as a result, outstanding amount has been calculated at Rs.17,998/- till 01.12.2012. Further, it is  stated had the complainant complied the statutory provision and paid the outstanding amount and the cost of the accessories for reconnection the supply of the electricity would have been resorted. The complainant has intentionally not complied the basic requisite formalities for which OP is not liable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP hence, he prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

                  In this case complainant gave his evidence by swearing affidavit and exhibited as many as 15 (fifteen) documents in support of his case. On the other hand, OP examined Sri Prithwish Roy Choudhury as DW-1 and exhibited 1 (one) document to rebut the case of the complainant.

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

        Upon going through the evidence of both the parties and their documentary evidence and argument advanced, it is found that complainant obtained electric connection on 12.01.06 being Consumer No.TKM-27 and Meter No.046801. He used the said electric connection for his cultivation as well as dwelling house. Unfortunately, on 05.01.07 fire took place at the main pole and thereby electric connection in the house of the complainant was disrupted. The complainant informed the matter to SDO and also requested him to reconnect the electric connection in his house. The complainant has also paid last bill amounting Rs.343/- on 15.09.06 vide Ext.3 and 4. But in spite of said payment and repeated request, the OP failed to reconnect the electricity  in his house. As such, the complainant filed the present case and the Forum by an interim order directed the OP to reconnect the electric supply in the dwelling house of the complainant and in compliance of the above direction the OP connected the electric line in the dwelling house of the complainant on 16.05.13. From the above it appears that  the complainant was without electricity since 05.01.07 to 16.05.13 i.e. more than six years. The OP without giving any connection raised the bill for Rs.16,929/-. Thus, the OP without supplying the electricity raised  aforesaid bill which is amount to deficiency in service.

           Apart from these, it appears from evidence on record that the complainant paid Rs.343/- for the period 04.07.06 to 03.08.06 vide Ext.2,3 and 4 whereas, the OP again vide Ext.10 raised another bill for the same amount raising the bill for Rs.455.50/- showing that 342.70/- as arrear charge which the complainant has already been paid along with present due of Rs.143/- totalling Rs.455.50/-.  Thus, it appears that the OP raised the same amount twice, once in the previous bill which complainant has already been paid and again in the next bill which is amount to deficiency in service.

          Learned counsel for the OP in his argument submitted that in terms of the statutory provision of the Assam Electricity Regulation Commission’s terms and condition as well as Electricity Act, 2003 complainant is required to pay all his outstanding dues and further he is required to supply service connection materials and other accessories for  restoration of electricity. But in the present case the complainant neither paid the outstanding dues nor he supplied materials for reconnection for which the OP could not restore the electric connection.

        Learned counsel for the OP further submitted that complainant while filing affidavit stated in para –5 alleging among others that bill of Rs.1148/- sent to him by the OP whereas, the said bill has not been exhibited as document but shown in the letter dated 29.04.08 Ext-B by which he mentioned the above amount as a bill sent by the OP which is not sufficient evidence to show that the OP sent such amount of bill to the complainant. It is again submitted that although the electric supply was disconnected due to fire in the pole the complainant failed to supply the service connection material and other accessories for restoration of electric supply. However, it is submitted that the total outstanding amount payable by the complainant has been accumulated at Rs.17998/- till 01.12.12 i.e. prior to the restoration of electric connection on 16.05.13. As per clause 18-B of terms and condition of supply, the consumer is required to pay the disputed amount of bill under protest and simultaneously to lodge a written complaint to the Board  but the complainant failed to comply with the said statutory requirement.

         So far the submission in argument by OP as regard to the payment of outstanding bills is concerned, it is found that the complainant paid the bill for Rs.343/- from the period 04.07.06 to o3.08.06. Thereafter, the same amount was again raised in the next bill i.e.30.08.06 to 25.10.06 raising to Rs.455.50/- including the previous bill which the complainant already paid. So, the next bill became disputed for which the complainant did not paid and remain amount was only Rs.143/- i.e. the current charge for the said period. Meanwhile, fire took place in the pole for which the electric connection was disrupted in the dwelling house of the complainant. Complainant made several requests to the OP vide letters i.e. Ext.3,5,6,7,8 and 9 but in spite of that the OP did not respond any of the letter of the complainant. The OP wilfully neglected to attend the request of the  complainant. Again OP in their argument submitted that they could not provide the connection of electricity for non- supply  of necessary materials but it is to be mentioned here that though the complainant repeatedly requested for restoration of his electric connection by sending  several letters whereas the OP neither responded the above letters nor give any letter regarding the supply of necessary materials as was made to the complainant vide Ext.15 while complying the interim order of the Forum, requesting the complainant to supply material for reconnection which is very much necessary for the complainant because without such requirement the complainant  cannot supply the materials. Hence, the argument made by the learned counsel is not sustainable.

        So far the bill of Rs.1148/- is concerned, it is admittedly clear that the complainant has not submitted any such bill and only mentioned the said amount in Ext-5 the letter dated 29.04.08. As regards to the submission of learned counsel for payment of total outstanding of Rs.17,998/- till 01.12.12 is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that on 05.01.07 fire took place in the pole and thereby electric connection in the dwelling house of the complainant was disconnected  and since 05.01.07 till 16.05.13 (reconnected the electricity in compliance of the Forum’s order) there was no electric connection in the house of the complainant, which resulted grave hardship to the complainant. As such, complainant is not liable to pay for the bill for the period, for which current was not supplied. As such, for not maintaining the line and restoring the electric connection and without using electricity the bill raised for Rs.17,998/- the complainant is not liable to pay the same.  As such, the failure to restore the electric connection in the premises of the complainant for those period  is dereliction of the duty of the OP by violating the duty imposed on the OP by law.

        As per section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which provides seven days clear notice before disconnection and subsequently by Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003 for disconnection of supply in default of payment provides fifteen days clear notice in writing to the complainant but there was no such notice of default given to the complainant at any time. Apart from these, there is no default in payment on the part of the complainant. It is settled principle of law that disconnection of electricity supply on account of non-payment of some arrears without issuing notice amount to deficiency in service. The OP failed to show any such notice as required by law.

       In view of the foregoing decision and after considering the fact and evidence this Forum comes to an unassailable conclusion that fire took place on 05.01.07 at the main pole for which electric connection in the dwelling house of the complainant was disrupted. The complainant immediately informed the matter to the SDO, Dibrugarh Electrical Sub-Division No.1 vide Ext.2 on 06.01.07 with a request to reconnect his electric connection after repairing the electric post. Accordingly, it was an abundant duty on the part of the OP to restore the electricity connection immediately on the basis of request made by the complainant. The OP had to give indent to the complainant as like given in Ext.15 and to reconnect the electric supply. First and foremost duty on the part of the OP was to restore the electric connection since, electricity is the basic necessity for human life. Whereas, the OP for more than six years did not provide the electricity in the dwelling house of the complainant on the pretext that the complainant did not pay the arrear whereas, in fact, there was no arrear except the amount of Rs.17,998/- the amount which is raised while there was  no electric connection. It was the duty of the OP, after being given electric connection in the dwelling house of the complainant if there would have been any default the OP had to disconnect the electric connection after giving seven days/ fifteen days notice which was not done by the OP. Instead of that the OP remain silent though several letters were given by the complainant which is amount to negligence on the part of OP. Under the circumstances and the fact stated above unimpaired testimony of PW-1 and the plea which has been taken by the OP are highly contradictory and inconsistent with regard to the liability  of OP. The complainant for not reconnecting the electricity in the dwelling house of the complainant for more than six years suffered from basic necessities of the human life. He also suffered mental harassment and agony for repeated visiting to the office of the SDO personally which caused most mental  stress and agony.

         Considering the above fact and evidence led by PW-1 both by oral and documentary evidence which established deficiency in service and illegal trade practice committed by OP as defined U/s.12 of the C.P. Act as such, this Forum doth order to continue the electric connection provided to the dwelling house of the complainant vide order dated 18.12.14 in Misc. Case No.5/12 by this Forum  and to submit appropriate bills regularly and the complainant is directed to pay the consumption bill without fail. In view of the discussion made above regarding bill amount of Rs.17,998/- till 01.12.12 is set aside. This Forum directed the OP to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant for giving such mental and physical harassment. No cost is allowed. All the above order shall be complied within one month from the date of this judgment.

           Send copy of this judgment to OP for compliance.