Mr. Pothuri Venkateswara Rao, Member— The Appellant in this case is the Assistant Accounts Officer in the Narasaraopet Electricity Revenue Office of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board for the sake of convenience). The Guntur District Forum ordered him to pay compensation of Rs. 500/- to the tenant of a house bearing No. 16-61 having electricity connection bearing No. 2983 in Chilakaluripet. Chundi Venkateswarlu, the tenant complained in C.D. 59/89 that he was being harassed by the employees of the Board working in Chilakaluripet and Narasaraopet offices of the Board. Chilakaluripet is in the administrative jurisdiction of Narasaraopet Electricity Revenue Office.

2. The complainant in his complaint petition dated 14.7.1989 alleged that he was given wrong bills that though he was regularly paying his bills, power supply to his residence was illegally disconnected and that even after he paid the dues by M.O. as per the readings proovided by the Board, authorities power supply was not restored to his residence. He further alleged that he was subjected to mental agony, humiliation and inconvenience. In support of his complaint he got himself examined as P.W. 1 and produced various bills, receipts, notices and other connected documents.

3. In his evidence, P.W. 1, the complainant narrated how he was made to go round the offices of the opposite party several times and now pressure was brought on him to withdraw the case from the Forum. Further in his written statement dated 21.8.1989 he alleged that after receiving notice from the Forum the opposite party brought pressure through the Municipal Commissioner, that the employees of the Board motivated the villagers to send a petition against him (the complainant who is a teacher) and that they compelled him to write a letter to the Forum withdrawing his case. The reliefs he sought in the complaint were restoration of electricity connection and compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony that he suffered and payment of expenses he incurred for his visits to the offices of the opposite party.

4. The version of the Assistant Accounts Officer before the Forum was that the complainant was not the registered consumer of the said service connection, that the service connection was in the name of one Edera Anjaneyulu and therefore, the complainant had no legal right to file the petition. As regards the material facts the opposite party stated that an amount of Rs. 24/- being monthly slab rate for January, 1988 was due from the customer having service connection 2983, namely, Edera Anjaneyulu and that the service was disconnected at the cut-out point on 28.3.1988 for default of payment. Earlier, as the meter got struck the Board authorities replaced it on 3.8.1987. The opposite party alleged that even after the service was disconnected in March, 1988, the complainant illegally consumed electricity and the Board authorities had to again disconnect the service in April, 1989 for the second time. He contended that the Board reserved the right to prosecute the complainant for illegal use of power supply. One Parandhamaiah, brother of Edera Anjaneyulu in whose name the service connection exists, paid all the dues together with penalty etc., on 16.8.1989 and the supply was restored on the same day.

5. The opposite party in a representation submitted to the Forum on 2.12.1989 stated that the complainant informed the office of the Electricity Revenue Office by a letter dated 16.8.1989 that he proposed to withdraw the case. The opposite party adduced no oral evidence before the Forum but produced certain documents in support of his contentions.

6. The complainant in his averments before the Forum stated that he was forced to write a letter withdrawing his case and expressed his desire to pursue the matter. As the proceedings in the case reached its final stage, the complainant informed the Forum that he was forcibly vacated from the house by the owner