C.C. Pant, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.4.1998 passed by the District Forum, Almora in consumer complaint No. 166 of 1995, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 9,000 towards compensation, cost of litigation and other expenses and Rs. 1,000 for the money spent by the complainant on generator, within a month from the date of the order, failing which the complainant has also been held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the above amount. The consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 2 has been dismissed. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant -Sh. Paan Singh Mehta had applied to the Electricity Department for two days' temporary electricity connection with a load of 2 KW and had deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 100 and Rs. 520 vide receipt No. 22/649975/94 on 26.4.1995 for his son's marriage. The said load was sanctioned by Sub -Divisional Officer, U.P.S.E.B., E.D.D., Almora -opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 26.4.1995, endorsing its copy to the Executive Engineer, U.P.S.E.B., E.D.D., Jaakhandevi, Almora - opposite party No. 2. In spite of the proper sanction, the officials of the Electricity Department, alleging that the electricity was being used by the complainant without proper sanction for the excess load, disconnected the complainant's electricity connection on 26.4.1995. It caused the complainant a great inconvenience and mental and physical agony and he had to make alternative arrangements for light and decoration by hiring a generator and caused him a huge financial loss. For the redressal of his grievances, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Almora. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint in the above manner vide its order dated 6.4.1998. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party - Electricity Department has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant -opposite parties and perused the material placed on record. None appeared on behalf of the respondent -complainant in spite of proper service of the notices upon him. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the consumer complaint has been filed by the respondent on false and frivolous grounds. He submitted that the Junior Engineer of the Electricity Department Sh. Leela Dhar Joshi, when visited the premises of the respondent on 26.4.1995, found that the respondent was drawing the electricity unauthorizedly without the prior sanction from the Electricity Department for his son's marriage. The Junior Engineer disconnected the respondent's electricity connection. The respondent had deposited the requisite fee with the Electricity Department for the excess load after this disconnection. When the officials of the Electricity Department went to respondent's house for restoring the electricity connection, the respondent and his son along with his accomplices assaulted the officials, who were seriously injured. An F.I.R, to this effect was lodged with the Police Station. However, the respondent and the officials of the Electricity Department entered into a compromise and the said F.I.R, was withdrawn by them. But the respondent, even after this compromise, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum and, thus, the same is not just and maintainable. The District Forum has failed to appreciate these facts and circumstances of the case and, hence, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
(3.) WE considered the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants, but we find none of the arguments tenable. If the respondent, his son and his accomplices were so rowdy that they assaulted the officials of the Electricity Department, then we fail to understand, as to why the respondent had deposited the requisite fee. Instead of assaulting the officials of the Electricity Department at the time of restoring the electricity connection, they would had resisted or assaulted them when they were going to disconnect the electricity connection. Rather, the disconnection was done peacefully and without any unpleasant incident The District Forum's order speaks that the respondent had applied for the excess load of electricity on 24.4.1995 and the requisite fee was deposited on 26.4.1995. It also appears to us most in humanitarian that instead of issuing an inspection note to the respondent and making provisional assessment, the officials of the Electricity Department created hurdles in the marriage ceremony of respondent's son by disconnecting his electricity connection. Therefore, the findings recorded by the District Forum in its order, are not erroneous and the order is well discussed and is a self -speaking order and does not call for any interference. Thus, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. For the reason aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 6.4.1998 passed by the District Forum, Almora in consumer complaint No. 166 of 1995 is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs;