Deputy Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board vs VADILAL TARACHAND KOTHARI

SINCE Civil Misc. Application No. 336 of 2003 has been granted, this appeal has been given number.

WE have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB for short) now the appellant and the original complainant, now the respondent, who is aged about 78 years. WE have gone through the impugned order. WE have gone through the memorandum of appeal. It would appear that the complainant, a doctor, running Manav Mitra Parivar Trust and rendering social and charitable services to the poor persons had the occasion to come across a great deal of trouble from the side of opponent Gujarat Electricity Board inasmuch as the opponent GEB recovered from him Rs. 2,823.75 for supply of electricity to the complainant illegally and against the rules of opponent GEB. The electric connection which was given to the complainant was made available from the pole which was at a distance of less than 30 metres and electric connection in that event should have been given free of charge as per the rules of the opponent GEB. He, therefore, prayed for refund of the amount, compensation and cost before the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad. The opponent GEB resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the estimate given to the complainant and the payment made by the complainant was in accordance with the rules.

Upon consideration of the material and evidence placed before it, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that the opponent GEB recovered the amount as aforesaid from the complainant against its own rules and was guilty of deficiency in service in that respect.

WE have gone through the material which was relied on for passing the impugned order. The rule which has been quoted by the learned Forum indicates that opponent has to provide overhead service lines free of cost up to 30 metres from nearest distributing main line for purposes other than agricultural. In the present case the main line was at a distance of less than 30 metres from the complainant''s premises. This is borne out by the evidence which has been produced by the complainant and referred to by the learned Forum. Deficiency in service on the part of the opponent GEB further extended to keeping this fact away from the learned Forum. The learned Forum, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was no material in support of the defence taken by the opponent GEB. In our considered opinion, bearing in mind all the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order cannot be faulted. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER This appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.