AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is against the order dated 24. 7. 2006 passed in C. C. No. 61/2006 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena (hereafter Forum ).
THE case in brief is that the complainant (appellant here) in his complaint before the Forum alleged that about 20 years back he had taken electric connection to his shop in Municipal Bazar, Morena and was regularly paying the bills that he received up to 1992. In the year 1992, as a dispute with regard to property cropped up between the brothers, the said shop had to be closed down and he applied for disconnection on 15. 9. 1992. Since he again received a bill in October 1992, he met the opposite party (respondent here) and again requested for disconnection by another application dated 26. 10. 1992. Since the line was still not disconnected, he again went to respondent and submitted third application on 24. 3. 1993, and thereafter the line was disconnected and he did not receive any bills. The said family dispute was resolved some time in December 2005 and thereafter he again applied for connection. At this stage, the opposite party gave a bill of Rs. 32,000 and insisted on its payment before supply could be resumed. He, therefore, prayed before the Forum that he is not liable to pay any arrears since the earlier connection was disconnected and the shop was actually locked between 1992 to 2005. He further prayed that the said bill be quashed and the respondent be directed to give him fresh connection. After hearing both the parties the Forum rejected his application on the ground that he could not prove that his supply was really disconnected in the face of assertion by the respondent that the connection is still on and was never terminated and that the said application for disconnection are forged and were presented to the respondent. This appeal has been preferred against this order. Learned Counsel for both the parties were heard. Learned Counsel for appellant contended that at the request of the appellant when a Commissioner was appointed by the Forum to visit the shop in question of the appellant and to report about the fact of electric connection, the Commissioner had very clearly stated that there was no electric supply to the shop in question and that no meter was found installed therein. He had further reported that the old rusted meter bearing No. 5-10 A-260518 and showing meter reading of 0780 on demand was brought by the appellant and shown to him. The Forum by not accepting this report of the Commissioner has obviously erred in coming to its conclusion and passing the impugned order. He also drew our attention to the evidence produced by the appellant before the Forum and denied that any new meter was installed in January 2006 as alleged by the respondent.
We have gone through the record of the Forum very carefully and considered the arguments of both the parties. The appellant had submitted affidavits of 3 witnesses and a certificate of the ward member to prove that the said shop was closed for 10-12 years and was locked. These witnesses were also having shops in the neighbourhood of the shop of the appellant. They all have supported the contention of the appellant that the shop was in fact closed for last 10-12 years. The Forum has doubted the evidence of the two witnesses on the count that their age at present is 24 and 28 years and they could not exactly remember happenings of 14 years back. But the Forum seems to have overlooked the evidence of third witness one Rameshwar Shivhare aged 52 years who supports the contention the appellant. The Commissioner''s report indirectly supports this version in the sense that the power line was found cut and there was no meter installed. Although the carbon copies of the applications given by the appellant for disconnection dated 15. 9. 1992, 26. 10. 1992 and 24. 5. 1993 are on record bearing seal of the respondent''s office and they have been said to be fabrication by the respondent. The experts of the meter-reading book submitted by the respondent pertain to the period 3/2003 to 3/2006. Whereas in March 2003, the meter reading is shown as 0980, which is constant up to April 2004, the final reading in February 2006 is shown as 1093. In other words a total consumption of only 113 units shown to have taken place during three years, which can happen only when the shop is closed. It is interesting to note that the Commissioner has recorded in his report dated 19. 6. 2006 that there was no meter installed and that one old rusted meter, brought to his notice on demand, had a reading of 0780. If the installed meter showing last reading as 780 was removed, where from the respondent could note reading 980 to 1093 is anybody'' guess. The version of the respondent that a new meter was installed in January 2006 is again a figment of imagination because the Commissioner during spot inspection on 19. 6. 2006 did not find any such meter installed old or new. No record has been shown about arrears pre-dating March, 2003. The only bill that is placed on record by appellant is dated 11. 1. 2006, which was objected to by him. No record about either meter-reading or consumption between 1993 to 2003 has been adduced by the respondent to show if the appellant had in fact consumed any power, this would have conclusively proved if the line was really on or disconnection. The respondent has not shown any copies of the old bills that were sent to the appellant. In any case as per Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 arrears older than two years cannot be recovered. It is not understandable, why the respondents, if their version is to be taken true, did not disconnect the line, if huge arrears amounting to Rs. 17,063 existed right in March 2003. The meter-reading book excerpt in fact confirms that no consumption had taken place as mentioned above. Even if the contention of the respondent were to be accepted that no applications for disconnection were submitted by the appellant and that the said 3 applications are a fabrication, in view of huge arrears as reflected in the meter-reading book, there was no reason why the respondent did not disconnect the line.
FOR the above reasons and in the light of glaring facts mentioned above, we are inclined to believe the version of the appellant that because of closure of his shop in question, he had applied for disconnection and that the electric supply was disconnected. That is how the Commissioner did not find any meter installed or line connected. In any case, after presentation of the third application dated 24. 3. 1993, the disconnection shall be presumed to have taken place within a month thereafter. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the bill dated 11. 1. 2006 for Rs. 32,096 is quashed. It is further directed that respondent shall prepare a fresh bill on the basis of final meter reading of 0780 as discovered by the Commissioner and if the dues pertaining to that period are found to be recoverable from him, the same amount shall be recovered from the appellant. Parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.