Oral

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 1308 of 2009

Mahavir Panda s/o Ramayan Panda,

R/o Kasba, Rudrapur Tiwari Ward,

Tehsil, Rudrapur, Post, Rudrapur,

District, Deoria.                                                   …Appellant.                                                                         

1- Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,

    Through Adhishashi Abhiyanta, Vidyut

     Vitran Khand, Deoria.

2- Sahayak Abhiyanta Rajaswa, Vidyut

     Vitran Khand-I, Deoria.                            .…Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President.

2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.

None for appellant.

Sri Isar Husain, Advocate for the respondents.

Date   26.2.2024

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President: The instant  appeal has been preferred against judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Deoria in complaint case no.604 of 1999 dated 23.3.2009.

          Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant/ appellant is/was the consumer of the opposite parties and was having a connection of 1 Kilowatt of electricity supply. The electricity supply was consumed by the appellant/ complainant since the date of installation of meter and supply of electricity.

          Since the amount against the electricity charges were not paid by the complainant, a demand of the outstanding dues was raised which has been challenged by the complainant by means of the complaint before the ld. District Consumer Forum, Deoria. The ld. District Consumer Forum has considered the claim of the complainant as well as the reply submitted by the opposite parties Electricity Department and has also perused the  reliefs sought by the complainant which reads as follows:

          “अत: प्रार्थना है कि विपक्षीगण को आदेश दिया जाये कि वह प्रार्थी के पिछले बिल को आधार मान कर, प्रार्थी के जिम्‍मे जो भी बिजली का बिल बकाया है, उसका बिल बनाकर प्रार्थी को दे, जिससे कि प्रार्थी अपना बिजली का बिल जमा कर सके तथा इसके अलावा प्रार्थी को विपक्षीगण से निम्‍नलिखित क्षतिपूर्ति भी दिलवाने का आदेश दिया जाय।

1. मानसिक, शारीरिक व आर्थिक कष्‍ट के लिए मु. 4000/-

2. विपक्षीगण के कार्यालय में बार-बार आने जाने में व पत्र व्‍यवहार करने में हुआ खर्चा                                    मु.  500/-

                                     योग मु. 4500/-”

          After considering the relevant facts and after hearing the respective parties, the complaint has been dismissed after recording the reasons for dismissal. Hence, the instant appeal has been filed before this court by the appellant/complainant.

          The appeal is pending since last about 15 years and has been fixed at least on 20 dates and the counsel for the appellant appeared on previous dates fixed and after hearing the  respective counsels an interim order has been passed by this court on 17.3.2016:

          “अपीलार्थी की ओर से स्‍थगन आवेदन दिया गया है। यदि अपीलार्थी द्वारा 30,000/- रू0 (तीस हजार रूपए) जमा कर दिया जाता है तो आर0सी0 में उल्लिखित शेष धनराशि की वसूली अग्रिम आदेश तक स्‍थगित रखी जाएगी।

      पत्रावली नियत तिथि 26.07.2016 को सूचीबद्ध हो।”

          During the pendency of the instant appeal counsel representing the appellant died and, therefore, this court directed the office to issue notice to the appellant to engage another counsel. Accordingly, the notice has been issued to the appellant but the office report indicates that the notice issued/sent by the office, has been received back without effecting the service upon the appellant and further, that the office report indicates that “प्राप्‍तकर्ता” died during the pendency of the instant appeal.

          In view of above, notice sent is deemed to be served upon the representative of the appellant/complainant. However, no one appeared before this court today to pursue the appeal.

          Sri Isar Husain, ld. counsel for the respondents has pointed out that even the interim order passed by this court mentioned hereinabove dated 17.3.2016 has not been complied with nor the appellant has paid any electricity charges against the electricity bills raised by the opposite parties.   

          In view of the aforesaid, and particularly in view of the prayer made by the complainant in his complaint this court is of the opinion that the prayer made by the complainant reproduced hereinabove has to be considered by the opposite parties in accordance with law and thereafter, appropriate order be passed for recovery of the impugned demand of electricity charges against the electricity used by the appellant/complainant.

          With the above direction, the appeal is finally disposed of.

          A certified copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

          The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.

        (Justice Ashok Kumar)                 (Vikas Saxena)                          

               President                                    Member

JafRi, PA I

Court 1