TEEKARAM vs UPYANTRI, M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 19.12.1994 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Damoh (hereafter referred as "District Forum") in Case No. 110/93, by which the complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF history of the case is that appellant had a stationary shop located in a temporary shelter constructed on Panchayat land. Appellant had an electric connection No. CL 162. He was paying electric bills regularly. In June, 1992 during a drive launched by Government to remove me encroachments, his shop together with other encroachers was removed and during this operation, the electric connections were cut off. While the appellant alleged that the meter was also removed at the time his shop was dismantled, the respondents admitted cutting off the electric supply connection from the pole but maintained that meter was not removed. Entire case centres around this point. Appellant averred in his complaint before the District Forum that he requested respondents to reinstall the meter which they had taken away, the respondents did not pay any attention, went on giving him bill for the average consumption and asked him to deposit Rs. 403/- if he wanted meter to be installed. In the District Forum the appellant who was represented through a power of attorney by his son filed his own affidavit and that of three others in which it was stated mat one Shri Bhatnagar, Assistant Engineer took away the electric meter of the appellant and also that of his neighbour; while the respondents reinstalled the meter of the neighbour they created all sorts of difficulties for the appellant. In reply M.P.E.B. filed affidavit of Shri Bhatnagar who denied taking away the meter of me appellant but made no mention about the meter of the neighbour, who had deposed about this fact through his statement in me District Forum. District Forum after hearing both parties dismissed the complaint, and hence this appeal. In the appeal the appellant has averred that District Forum has not paid attention to the evidence put forth by him. Counsel for the appellant also put forward a plea that respondents have committed breach of agreement with the appellant by cutting off electric connection without notice of one month in spite of the admitted fact that appellant was paying his bills regularly. This breach of agreement unilaterally by M.P.E.B. could not be ignored by us. He further averred that by cutting off connection from pole the respondents had rendered the meter installed in premises totally useless and therefore they cannot charge its rent and therefore they are also prevented from charging minimum bill, as the respondents have stated to be doing all along. Respondents have restated their position that they have been charging minimum as per rules whether electricity was consumed or not.

We have heard both the parties and we have also perused the record of the case. In view of the submission of the Counsel mentioned in para 3 above, we would like to dwell on the circumstances relating to removal of appellant''s electric meter, while dismantling the shop of appellant during the drive to remove encroachments, a little more carefully.

BY now everyone is familier with the scene enacted during a concentrated drive to remove encroachments lock, stock and barrel. All the department representatives are involved during this operation. Respondents admit that they cut off electric connection from pole but did not remove the electric meter. During the same operation the shop of the appellant was dismantled and forcibly removed from site. Was the appellant expected to salvage his own property? or to safeguard the electric meter ? Why did the respondents leave it untouched ? If the respondents take the usual plea that it was appellant''s responsibility then this fact must also be considered that appellant had not removed his shop willingly and of his own accord but it was forcibly dismantled and respondent was a party in this dismantling process. It was therefore their responsibility to take away the meter or to obtain a receipt of the appellant that meter was given in his safe possession when the shop was dismantled. No such document has been produced by the respondents. We are therefore inclined to believe the story as it unfolds from the statement of witnesses, who were neighbourers of the appellant and who faced similar fate when encroachments were removed. We therefore hold that respondents were guilty of unilateral breach of agreement with appellant for cutting off electric connection without notice. Even if we admit that they did so as per Government orders, we believe that when things became normal and electric connections were restored, they should have treated appellant with greater sympathy and given him service as required under their obligations as per their agreement, when electric meter was initially supplied. We are therefore constrained to hold respondents guilty of deficiency of service for which appellant deserves to be compensated. However, looking to the circumstances of the case we feel that justice will be met adequately, if the respondents instal the new meter without any cost to the appellant. Fresh agreement should be drawn up as per rules and things should start afresh with clean slate. Amounts already deposited by appellant shall not be refunded at the same time, all the out standing bills shall be treated as waived off. We order accordingly. In the context of the discussion in preceding paragraphs the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 19.12.1994 is hereby setaside. We direct the respondents to compensate the appellant for deficiency in service in following manner. (a) Instal a new electric meter in the shop premises of appellant in place of disputed one and take action about agreement as per rules. (b) Waive any outstanding bills pending against appellant. We also direct that appellant will not be refunded any amount already deposited by him. Directions to be complied within one month of receipt of orders. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.