RAMANBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL vs CHIEF ENGINEER, GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE complainant in Original Complaint No. 44 of 1990 on the file of the State Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad is the appellant in this appeal. THE challenge is directed against the order dated March 27,1991 passed by the State Commission dismissing the complaint petition on the ground that the complainant was not entitled to the grant of any relief.

THE grievance of the complainant who is an. agriculturist owning four big has of agricultural and in his own name and another four big has of land in the name of his younger brother, was that the supply of electrical energy to his fields had been illegally disconnected on different occasions by the opposite party namely, the Gujarat State Electricity Board, during the years 1982, 1983, 1988 and1989. On that basis he sought to recover a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and odd by way of compensation from the opposite party. During the course of the proceedings before the State Commission, the complainant restricted his claim for compensation to the losses alleged to have been sustained by him on account of disconnection of electric supply during the years 1988,1989 only, apparently because of his having realized that the claim made in respect of the years1982 and 1983 was barred by time. The State Commission elaborately considered the matter in the light of the evidence adduced before it by both sides and it recorded the conclusion that the action taken by the opposite party for disconnecting the electric supply during the periods in question in1988, 1989 was legally justified inasmuch as the complainant was in default at the relevant times in the matter of payment of electricity bills.

We have scrutinized the evidence in the casein the light of the submissions made by both sides, and we are satisfied that the findings entered by the State Commission in respect of the years 1988 and1989 are fully supported by the materials on record. We accordingly uphold the finding of the State Commission that the impugned action by the opposite party for disconnecting the electric supply was justified in law and hence could not be regarded as illegal. When the complainant was in arrears in the matter of payment of bills, the respondent Board had the right and authority under law to disconnect or cut off the supply of electric energy to the premises of the consumer who makes default in payment. Such disconnection can not give rise to any cause of action for recovering of compensation from the Board. We accordingly hold that the State Commission was right in taking the view that the complainant was not entitled to any relief and in dismissing the complaint petition on the said ground.

IN the light of the foregoing discussion, we dismiss this appeal but do not make any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.