R.S.E.B. vs GAYATRI OIL AND FLOUR MILLS

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jhunjhunu dated 30.1.1999 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent has been allowed and the demand of Rs. 28,500/- raised by the appellant has been quashed with a further direction that the amount of Rs. 14,000/- deposited by the respondent be adjusted in his future liability.

FACTS relevant for disposal of this appeal in brief are that the respondent has been a consumer of the appellant and has been provided with an electric connection to run his business in the name of M/s. Gayatri Oil and Flour Mill, Guda Gorji, Distt. Jhunjhunu. It has been the case of the respondent that he has been regularly making the payments of the demands raised by the appellant but when he complained to the appellant''s officials that the electric wires are loose and they may be set right; one Abdul Hameed, Lineman demanded Rs. 500/- for the job. He made complaint about it to the Superintending Engineer on 19.12.1995 where-after Abdul Hameed started having animosity with him. When his electric supply was also disrupted thereafter, he made the complaint to the JEn on 7.6.1997 and since nothing was done, he complained again on 18.6.1997 and 20.6.1997 also. But the said Lineman Abdul Hameed who was ordered to remove the defects earlier was again sent to rectify it. He, however, did not comply. Then after respondent made a further request on 21.6.1997 to the appellant then another employee by the name of Rajendra rectified the defect and the electrict supply line was put in order. It has been the grievance of the respondent that because of complaints made by him, the appellant raised a penalty of Rs. 28,500/- on the basis of vigilance checking of his premises on 25.6.1997. When the matter was taken before the Settlement Committee of the appellant, he deposited an amount of Rs. 14,000/- and thereafter his electric supply was restored. Feeling aggrieved with the allegations of theft of electricity having been made against him falsely; and demanding Rs. 28,500/- by the appellant as uncalled for he approached the District Forum. the appellant contested the complaint by filing a written version and asserted that when a vigilance checking was made on 25.6.1997 by the vigilance wing of the appellant then it was found that the respondent was committing theft of electrical energy by joining terminal wire to reverse the electric meter and hence the demand of Rs. 28,500/- was raised as per law dated 17.1.1995.

From a perusal of the impugned order of the learned District Forum, it is made out that the District Forum has been of the opinion that the vigilance checking report was not placed before it. However, the contention of the appellant that the matter was considered by the Settlement Committee of the appellant is borne out from the minutes of the Settlement Committee dated 6.9.1999 wherein it is mentioned that the respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 14,000/- after the matter was discussed before the Settlement Committee. It is also mentioned in the copy of the settlement filed before the learned District Forum that the respondent has refused to assert the discretion given by the Settlement Committee. The conduct of the respondent in running to the Consumer Forum instead of taking due course by challenging the order of the Settlement Committee before appropriate authorities exhibits that all is not well at the premises where the respondent was running his Atta Chakki business. It has also to be kept in mind that although the appellant asserted that a vigilance checking of the premises of thet respondent was done on 25.6.1997 but no such vigilance report is available on record nor it has been filed. A copy of a letter which has been filed by the respondent, and submitted to the Superintending Engineer on 27.6.1997 shows that he questioned the demand of Rs. 28,500/- as false and fictious.

IN view of facts discerned from the record, we are of the opinion that conduct of the appellant in not furnishing the vigilance checking report dated 25.6.1997 before the District Forum exhibits that the demand of Rs. 28,500/- seems to have been raised on a presumptive ground of stealing electrical energy by the respondent. If this matter is looked at from another angle, the conduct of the respondent also creates doubts when after the matter is taken before the Settlement Committee, he deposits an amount of Rs. 14,000/-. Before the Settlement Committee, the case of the appellant has been that the respondent committed theft of electrical energy and the respondent denied it. To us, it appears that no person in such a situation would deposit an amount of Rs. 14,000/- after the matter is dealt with by the Settlement Committee in his presence and his conduct in refusing to sign the settlement arrived at between the parties exhibits that he wants to escape totally from his liability to pay any amount whatsoever to run his business. Looking from this perspective, we are of the firm opinion that since the settlement Committee has compounded the conduct of the respondent by asking him to deposit Rs. 14,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case and electrical energy has been restored and this amount having been paid by the respondent to the appellant it should terminate this dispute between the parties. In other words, the liability of the respondent in respect of consumption of electrical energy for the disputed period is restricted to Rs. 14,000/- which has already been paid by the respondent to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order is qashed and the appeal is disposed of as above with cost on parties. It is made clear that this order would not be treated as a precedent for any similar matter. Appeal disposed of.