LALTA PRASAD Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION DIVISION-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order dated 17.2.2003 passed by the learned DCDRF, Shahjahanpur in complaint case No. 359 of 1999, the appellant/complainant Lalta Prasad s/o late Sri Mool Chand has filed the instant appeal on 11.3.2003 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned judgment and order is bad in the eye of law and was passed without taking into consideration the facts, circumstances and evidence available on record. It has, therefore, been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice otherwise, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. R.K. Gupta and the learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Isar Husain at length and have gone through the records in the light of their arguments.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that the appellant Lalta Prasad applied for an electric connection for his residential premises in the month of September, 1992 and accordingly, deposited a sum of Rs. 650.00 towards Security Money and Rs. 200.00 for purchasing cable. The staff of the respondent did not give him receipt for the aforesaid Security Money and informed him that the same will be given to him afterwards. It has been alleged that no connection was given to him till October, 1993 and, therefore, he again contracted the Officers of the Department for redressal of his grievances. However, no connection given to him till December, 1996 and, therefore, he applied for a separate connection in the name of his wife which was given to him in time. He, therefore, applied for refund of Security Money which he had deposited earlier. In the meantime, the respondent Electricity Department served him a bill bearing No. 7422762 for Rs. 7,523.00. After hearing both the parties, the Forum below dealt with the matter point -wise. As far as, the first question is concerned, as to whether the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 650.00 as Security Money for obtaining a connection in the month of September, 1992, the Forum below, on the basis of facts, circumstances and evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that no receipt or document has been submitted in support of the above contention. Besides this, the appellant has not named the person whom he had given the money. Furthermore, no complaint was made by him in this regard when he was not given the connection. It has also been held that the alleged money was given in the year 1992 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 1999. Thus, this part of the complaint was barred by limitation. There is no irregularity or illegality in this finding. The finding is based on facts, circumstances and evidence available on record and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the same. The second question that was dealt with by the Forum below was whether the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 7,523.00 towards payment of bill No. 7422762. The Forum below dealt with the matter at length and arrived at the conclusion that the respondents have not given any evidence regarding installation of the connection. They have admitted that a fresh connection was given to the appellant in the name of his wife in the same premises where arrears of bill was existing. This is not permissible under the rules. There is nothing on record to indicate that the alleged connection was energized and subsequently, de -energized. He was not given any bill between the period of September, 1992 to December, 1996. The Department has failed to file any bill raised prior to 25.8.1998 on which date, bill of Rs. 7,523.00 was given to him. The Forum below failed to take notice all these relevant facts before passing the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the respondent admitted that there is no provision under which a fresh electric connection can be given to a person in his name or in his wife's name at the premises where there existed a connection earlier which was disconnection on the ground of non -payment of dues. The respondent Electricity Distribution Division has failed to prove that a valid connection was given to the appellant in pursuance to his request in the year 1992 and the same was subsequently de -energized in December, 1996 for non -payment of dues of Rs. 7,523.00. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order dated 17.2.2003 partly suffers from manifest error of law and fact and, therefore, it cannot be allowed to sustain. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed in the light of observations made hereinabove and the bill No. 7422762 for Rs. 7,523.00 is quashed for want of cogent evidence. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be given to the parties in accordance with rules.