AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal has been filed by the CESCO authorities against the order dated 25.9.2002 passed by the District Forum, Dhenkanal, directing them to restore power supply to the residence of the complainant with immediate effect and to charge arrear dues from 27.5.1999. Besides they have been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 500/- to the complainant.
THE complainant alleged that on deposit of the service connection charge amounting to Rs. 577/- on 27.3.1999 the CESCO authorities supplied electricity energy to his premises with effect from 27.5.1999. Though he was regularly paying the energy bills, the opposite parties illegally disconnected the power supply on 26.12.2001 without any prior notice. THErefore, he filed the C.D. case. The opposite parties in their written version stated, inter alia, that on 26.12.2001 when the meter reader along with revenue collection squad had gone for meter reading they found the meter to be by-passed, because there was no advancement of the reading. They stated that the meter was "presumed to be tampered". They also found that the power supply had been unauthorisedly extended to the premises of one Damodar Nayak. Therefore, they disconnected the power supply.
The District Forum framed five issues for consideration. The Forum answered all the issues in favour of the complainant in absence of any documents to prove the case of the opposite parties. Relying on the decision reported in III (1992) CPJ 213=1992 CPR (2) page 521, Patel Kantilal Kevaldas v. Dy. Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, the District Forum held that mere allegation in the show-cause is no proof of the fact. Relying on Regulation 64 of the OERC Regulations, 1998 and the decision reported in 1994 (1) CPR page 815, HSEB of Ambala Cantt. v. Karan Singh, the District Forum gave a finding that there was no evidence from the side of the opposite parties that the meter was tampered and opportunity having not been afforded to the complainant, the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service and, therefore, are liable to pay compensation.
THE appellants have mainly taken the stand that since the consumer had interfered with the licensees apparatus which constitutes immediate danger to the safety of the installation of personnel, in exercise of power under Clause 46 of the Code, the line was disconnected. We have gone through the record including the judgment of the Court below. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly we confirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. We make no order as to the cost of this appeal. Appeal dismissed.