MOTI LAL vs Superintending Engineer, U.P. State Electricity Board

THIS is an appeal by Sri Moti Lal against the judgment and order dated 19.8.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh in Complaint Case No. 34/1992.

MR. M.H. Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant and MR. Deepak Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondents have been heard at length and the entire record has been scrutinized thoroughly. The complainant''s allegations were that he did have power supply to his residence through direct extraction from the power line which was passing through his residence. His further case is that the aforesaid power line went to the residence of one Sri Walter Charan, an employee of respondent, his neighbour. It was alleged that Sri Walter Charan has in his turn distributed electricity to other neighbours on direct payment from them.

The respondent came out with a scheme to regularise the power connection upon which the appellant deposited Rs. 250/- on 24.10.1989. The respondents did not provide metered connection. Due to manipulation of the said Sri Walter Charan, the angle and wires through which the electric power was coming to the residence of the complainant was removed by the respondents'' men. The result was that on 29.10.1989, the aforesaid action having been done, the power connection was disrupted and thereafter the complainant did not get power for his residence. He went to the District Magistrate with a complaint that illegal removal of angle has been done at the instance of Sri Walter Charan. Consequently, he prayed that the respondent also should correct the damage done. Having heard nothing from the respondents or other authorities, the complainant filed Complaint No. 34/1992 before the District Forum which has been dismissed, hence this appeal.

THE respondents'' (Power Board/Corporation) case was that the amount of Rs. 250/- for regularisation of power connection was duly deposited against Receipt No. 145206. It was further stated that six months prior payment for the bill was not paid. It was said that the allegations against Sri Walter Charan were wrong. Written Statement further stated that the complainant was not entitled to the regularisation because of non-payment of the said bill amount for the last six months. The District Forum having examined the matter, dismissed the complaint with an observation that the complainant can make regular application afresh for a power connection and if made, should be considered by the respondents.

MR. M.H. Khan vehemently argued that once the power connection was sought to be regularised and payment as required under the scheme in vogue then was deposited, the duty to complete the service was explicit on the part of the respondents. He further contended that the complainant was and is prepared to make payment of the six months charges which should be admittedly the immediate last six months before 24.10.1989. He further argued that whatever damage has been done at the instance of outsider such as Sri Walter Charan have got to be provided by the respondents and the power connection which was in existence has to be restored and meter has to be installed. Mr. Deepak Mehrotra on the other hand said that no liability can now be fixed on the respondents to give or regularise the then existing power connection for two reasons. Firstly, no one knows what the position today at the site is, may be that houses have been built, may be that the poles, wires or cable has to be fixed or drawn which is not done or was not to be done in matters of regularisation of illegal power connection. Secondly the complainant did not deposit six months payment and, therefore, disentitled himself to the claim of regularisation. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length, it has to be concluded that the argument made on behalf of the respondent/Board are not acceptable.

ONCE it is admitted that Rs. 250/- were accepted as regularisation fees, the respondents'' liability began to demand the exact amount payable as bill for immediate prior six months. From the record, it does not transpire that any amount was intimated as demand from the complainant for depositing. In this connection, the argument of Mr. M.H. Khan is correct that once the meter was installed, the capacity of voltage etc. could have been known and then only the Board could have said on the basis of the meter to be installed as to what amount was payable as prior six months charges. Since meter was not installed and no demand was made, then fault lies with the respondents. Therefore, Mr. Deepak Mehrotra''s second argument that the appellant was not entitled to regularisation is rejected.

COMING to the first argument of Mr. Deepak Mehrotra that position at the site may have changed, should not detain the Commission any more. The appeal is a continuation of the proceedings initiated before the Trial Court. The complaint was filed within time. The amount was deposited as per the scheme. The appellant is prepared to pay the prior six months charges if and when it shall have been demanded. Consequently, the duty and responsibility on the part of the respondents to complete the service having accepted the deposit of Rs. 250/- is full and absolute. The first argument of Mr. Deepak Mehrotra also does not succeed. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the District Forum dated 19.8.1992 are set aside. The respondent is directed to forthwith furnish the prior six months bill demanding exact amount. This may be done after installation of the meter or without it on the basis of information which may be available through the application which was made by the complainant for regularisation of the power connection. Parties will bear their own costs. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed.