RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.2834 of 2002

Krishna Bhalla w/o Late Sri Rakesh Kumar Bhalla,

R/o Vill: Rahwa Bishunpur, Pargana, Tehsil &

District: Bahraich.                                             ..Appellant.

Versus

1-  U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow

     Thorugh its Chairman.

2- Executive Engineer, Electricity Sub-Division,

    Bahraich, U.P. State Electricity Board,

    Bahraich.

3- S.D.O., Electricity Distribution Division-I,

    U.P. State Electricity Board, Bahraich.   ..Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Jugul Kishor, Member.

For Appellant        : Sri Arun Tandan

For Respondents   : Sri Deepak Mehrotra

Date    29.12.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.10.2002, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Bahraich in complaint case No.55 of 1998, the appellant Smt. Krishna Bhalla w/o Late Sri Rakesh Kumar Bhalla has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjectures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice otherwise, the appellant will suffer irreparable financial loss.

(2)

          From perusal of the complaint, it transpires that the original complaint was filed by Sri Rakesh Kumar Bhalla and after his death, his wife Smt. Krishna Bhalla was duly substituted in his palace.

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the original complainant Sri Rakesh Kumar Bhalla obtained a 5 HP electric connection bearing no.002857 on 27.1.1994 for running his Tube-well. The connection was disconnected on 27.2.1996 for non-payment of bills. It was submitted that the respondent Electricity Board did not provide him any bill before the disconnection. Thereafter, the appellant/complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4,000.00 towards part payment for restoration of the connection. In spite of that his connection was not restored. Feeling aggrieved by this gross deficiency in service, the appellant/complainant filed complaint case no.55 of 1998 for redressal of his grievances.

The respondents Electricity Board took the plea that since the connection was given from Rural Feeder, therefore, the appellant/complaint was required to pay fixed charges. He did not pay the arrears till 27.2.1996 and, therefore, the connection was de-energized as per rules. On that date, a sum of Rs.7,638.70 was outstanding against the connection. He did not pay the balance in spite of notice and, therefore, the connection was permanently disconnected on 4.4.1998. On that date, a sum of Rs.12,338.50 was due on the appellant/ complainant. Hence, there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent Electricity Board.

(3)

The Forum below considered all facts, circumstances and evidence on record and held that the connection was de-energized on 27.2.1996 for non-payment of dues. The appellant/ complainant failed to deposit the arrears in spite of notice and, therefore, the connection was permanently de-energized on 4.4.1998. On that date also, there was an arrear of Rs.12,938.50. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the complaint was dismissed on 3.10.2002 and a sum of Rs.250.00 imposed upon the complainant under Section 26 of the Act 68 of 1986 for filing frivolous and vexatious complaint.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant did not dispute the arrears. No irregularity or illegality in the order was pointed out. Had there been any dispute regarding the genuineness of the bills, the appellant/complainant should have approached the higher authorities for redressal of grievances under Regulation 19(5) of U.P. Electricity Supply(Consumers) Regulations, 1984 or should have atleast filed an objection. No such objection was ever raised by the appellant/complainant and, therefore, it will not be appropriate to hold that the bills were wrong or inappropriate. There is no irregularity or illegality in the judgment and, therefore, there is no scope for any interference.

However, the Forum below imposed a find of Rs.250.00 on the complainant. The Forum below has not given any finding that the cost was imposed for filing frivolous or vexatious complaint. Section 26 of the Act 68, 1986 provides that "Where a complaint instituted before

(4)

the District, the State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may be specified in the order."

          In the instant matter, the Forum below has not recorded any reason for holding that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious in nature. It has failed to discuss the nature of frivolousness in the judgment and, therefore, this part of the operative portion of the judgment relating to imposing the cost for filing frivolous or vexatious complaint, needs to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed.  

ORDER

          The appeal is partly allowed and the cost of Rs.250.00 imposed for filing vexatious and frivolous complaint is set aside. Remaining part of the judgment is confirmed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with the rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                               (Jugul Kishor)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.4