IMPORTANT POINT
Person having electricity connection in his name is liable to pay charges.

Mr. K.B. Gawali, Member—This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Dist. Forum, Aurangabad in complaint case No. 33/2010. Present respondent is original complainant.

2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under:

That, the present respondent original complainant is running a factory in the name and style “S.K. Enterprises” at plot bearing No. K-124, M.I.D.C, Waluj. That, he has obtained electric connection from the appellant and his consumer number is 490011434832. It is the case of respondent that by his letter dated 22.6.2005 and reminder dated 26.8.2005 he had requested appellant for temporary disconnection of his electric connection but the appellant did act upon his application in time. It was further contended that since he had again to start his factory he had applied to the appellant in the month of June 2009 for the restoration of his electric connection. However, inspite of repeated request his electric connection was not restored by the appellant. It was further contended that he had been to the appellant on 11.1.2010 for enquiry regarding restoration of his connection. When he was told that arrears of electric bill amounting to Rs.4,00,000 were outstanding against him and unless the said amount was paid no connection would be given to him. He had therefore contended that since appellant did not give him electric connection he had to bear loss of Rs.1,40,000 since he could not start his factory and hence he approached to the Dist. Forum seeking directions to the appellant to pay him total amount

Rs. 2,65,000 which consisted of Rs. 1,40,000 for his financial loss, Rs.50,000 towards mental agony and Rs.75,000 towards physical agony i.e. visiting time and again to the office of appellant at Waluj (Aurangabad).

3. The appellant i.e. original opponent appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It was contended that his electric connection was permanently disconnected in the month of March 2006 and therefore he was not his consumer at the time of filing complaint. It was further contended that although he was asked to deposit electric bill in the month of March 2006, he did not pay the same and filed complaint on 12.1.2010 i.e. after a period of about 4 years from the date of disconnection of his electric supply. Hence his complaint was barred by limitation. It was also the contention of the appellant that although the respondent had applied for temporary disconnection vide his letter dated 22.6.2005 his tenant namely Shri. R.S. Nagargoje had filed application dated 23.6.2005 for not disconnecting electric supply as the said tenant was running factory in that premises in the name of M/s. Renuka Multipack Pvt. Ltd. and that there was an agreement with the respondent executed on 1st June, 2001 for the period of 5 years. Therefore temporary connection was not disconnected and when he failed to deposit the arrears of Rs.1,77,863 as on March 2006 his connection was permanently disconnected on 27th March, 2006. Thus it was contended that although he had requested for supply of electric connection in the month of June 2009 as per regulation No. 10.5 unless the arrears are paid no electric connection could be given and thus averred that for not getting connection it was the respondent who was responsible and not the appellant for delay caused in giving connection. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellant and therefore requested that the complaint be dismissed.

4. Dist. Forum after going through the papers and hearing the parties passed the impugned judgment and order and by way of it’s said order allowed the complaint and cancelled the electric bills as charged by appellant to the respondent. In addition it was directed to appellant to charge the bill at fixed rate from 22.6.2005 till the restoration of electricity and that electric connection should be restored within 30 days. It was further o