Deficiency in service by the electricity board for failure to restore electricity supply and sending illegal bills.

Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President—This appeal has been directed by opposite parties against order dated 21.6.2000 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Jhajjar, Haryana (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), whereby complaint of respondent (complainant) was accepted and appellants were directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the respondent within one month, failing which interest @ 18% was ordered to be paid from the date of decision.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent Jai Lal was holder of electricity connection bearing account No. H-5/89 for operating a tubewell situated in village Sehlga. On 8.6.1997, there was a storm and due to storm, two poles of the electricity which were meant for supplying electricity to the tubewell of the respondent were broken and fell down on the ground and from that date there was no electricity supply to his tubewell. He had informed the appellants about this mishap but no action was taken.

3. It was next averred that in spite of the fact that no electricity was supplied, the officials of Electricity Board continued sending bills on average basis and the said bills were illegal as he had not consumed any electricity.

4. It was further averred that after 7 years on 30.6.1994, the line was repaired and two poles were set up and the supply of electricity was given on that line but his connection was not energized.

5. Alleging deficiency in service, he prayed for compensation of Rs. 10,000 per year.

6. Opposite parties (appellants) contested the complaint and filed reply. They stated that the poles were broken due to storm and supply became normal after the poles were repaired. They next stated that the respondent was defaulter, so, electricity supply was not restored.

7. This complaint was previously dismissed by the District Consumer Forum, Rohtak on 28.8.1998. Against the said order, respondent/complainant filed appeal in the Haryana State Commission which was accepted and the case was remanded for afresh decision on merits, in accordance with law vide order dated 6.1.1999.

8. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.

9. After hearing Counsel for the parties, the complaint was accepted and opposite parties were directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation, as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.

10. Aggrieved by the said order dated 21.6.2000, opposite parties have filed the present appeal.

11. We have heard Mr. Sanjay, LDC on behalf of appellants, Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for respondent and carefully gone through the file.

12. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was holder of electric connection bearing No. H 5/89 for the purpose of operating tubewell. It is further an admitted fact that on 8.6.1987, there was storm due to which two poles were broken and the electricity supply to the tubewell was disrupted. The respondent had informed the appellants on the same day but the poles were not repaired for a long period of 7 years and were repaired only on 30.6.1994. No action was taken by the appellants although he visited several times and requested for restoration of electricity supply.

13. It was contended on behalf of appellants that the premises of the respondent remained locked and as such the meter reader could not visit for taking reading and the bills were issued on average basis. It was difficult to believe that for seven years the bills were issued on average basis and the meter reader could not take reading on any occasion. The case of respondent is that the appellants did not supply electricity to the tubewell for a long period of 7 years. No documentary evidence has been produced on the file to show that the line was energized within a week and the respondent continued drawing energy for the tubewell. Thus, the bills sent by the appellants on the basis of average are illegal and without any basis. They were not entitled to send bills on average basis when they had not supplied electricity to the respondent.

14. We concur wi