AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an appeal by the complainant against the order of the Forum allowing his claim in part with direction to the opposite party to give adjustment of the paid bills with the future bills to be raised by the opposite party for consumption of gas. The Forum rejected the restraint order as sought for by the complainant. The opposite party who is the respondent here has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment.
THE complainant is a consumer of gas supplied by the opposite party through underground pipe lines. THE supply was disrupted for some period because of construction of Gariahat Flyover. According to the opposite party the gas supply line of that locality was disconnected for diversification of work of pipe lines from 3.8.2000 to 22.2.2001. On 23.2.2001 the supply was restored to all consumers of the locality including the appellant. THE opposite party was billed for average consumption as per the terms of agreement for supply of gas for the period the gas could not be supplied to the consumer. A sum of Rs. 1,573.81 was the billing amount and this had been adjusted with the bill for the month of June, 2001. THE complainant raised a billing dispute for the said period. He claims that he made several representations in writing apart from personal calls but without any effect. He alleges that the O.P. had been sending bills from February, 2001 onwards by adding previous amount surcharge, etc. with the current months'' bills without settling the accounts of the previous bills for the period during which there had been no supply of gas. THE opposite party alleges that a huge sum of Rs. 21,259.68 has become due on account of consumption of gas but the complainant did not pay the amount. THEy state that the last payment received by the respondent company was on 1.12.2000. THE opposite party admits that they had disconnected the supply because of non-payment of huge amount. Mr. J. Batabal, the Assistant Manager (Law) of the opposite party submits during hearing that the company finds it difficult to maintain the supply because of huge outstanding dues and so they had disconnected the supply. He submits that the complainant insists on settlement of the account when gas supply was disrupted because of diversification work of pipe lines in the area. THE complainant could not produce any paper to show that he had made any payment towards consumption of gas after the restoration of supply was effected on 23.2.2001. THE complainant argues the case himself and alleges that he has approached the authorities of the O.P. for settlement of the account but without any result. He submits that the Forum has committed error in not awarding compensation in his favour. He submits that the settlement of accounts is required to be done first and then and there only the opposite party could claim the outstanding dues. It appears that the Forum observed that the subtle dispute between the parties lies in proper calculation of gas allegedly supplied by the opposite party and consumed by the complainant. THE Forum was of the view that the aforesaid disputes cannot be settled without an opinion of an expert. We have perused the judgment thoroughly and find that the appeal is devoid of any merit. So it deserves dismissal which we hereby do. Appeal dismissed.