The main legal point established in the judgment is the rights and liabilities of heirs as consumers after the death of the original consumer, the obligation of the electricity department to disconnect the connection within a specified time, and the duty of the electricity department to gather information about the user.

Delivered by Sri Surendra Kumar, Senior Member: These are two cross appeals arising out of order dated 23.08.2003 passed by the District Forum. Hardwar whereby the Electricity Department. was directed not to collect any amount in future relating to the disputed electricity connection. Cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five . Hundred) was also awarded. The complainant. Sh. Sayeed has filed Appeal No. 775 2003. Sh. Sayeed v. Executive Engineer. UPCL for the enhancement of award amount while the Electricity Department has filed Appeal No. 921/2003. Executive Engineer, UPCL Vs. Sh. Sayeed for setting aside the order. Since in both the appeals common• question of law and facts are involved, therefore both these appeals are taken together for disposal. Copy of the judgment shall be placed in .the records of both the appeals.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the complainant. Sh. Meer Hasan had taken an electricity connection on 10.10.1991 for his tubewell. He died on 26.01.1997. After his death his 6 sons are the legatheirs. He alleged that because unfortunately his tubewell failed therefore he consumed the electricity only for few days. He continued the connection in the expectation of again boring but after many efforts his tubewell could not be successful. Therefore his father applied on permanent disconnection of his connection on 26.10.1994, on which the Electricity Department made imlestigation and according to their direction. The consumer deposited Rs. 100/- (Rupee$ Hundred) on 01.11.1994 to the cashier. But still the permanent disconnection was not done. His father was about 90 years of age, he tried hard for permanent disconnection and he paid 20-30,000/- to employees of the opposite party and had to sell his land so that he can complete the procedure of permanent discc5n.nection of his connection. He deposited all the bills but the employees of the opposite party were not satisfied and in the end his father died on 26.01.1997. After that his elder brother Sh. Musharraf also made man!! efforts for disconnection. but he was not successful. At last the complainant went to the office of the opposite party, he was asked to give his affidavit, which he produced, in the office of the opposite party on 24.031998 on which the opposite party sent a letter on 01.05.1998 and they demanded the receipt of electricity fees and passbook, which he sent on 12,08.1998 but still the permanent disconnection was not done. But in stead a bill of Rs. 18,015/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Fifteen) was sent. Therefore' he filed the complaint.

3. The opposite party fired written statement and admitted that power connection in question is in the name of Sh. Meer Hasan. he expired in 1997 but the complainant has not done anything for the change of the name. It admitted the deposit of Hs. 1001- (Rupees Hundred) as permanent disconnection charges but alleged that according to the rules, this amount is Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred) and Rs. 100/- (Rupees Hundred) are deposited for reconnection charges. It admitted that in March 1996 there were dues of Rs. 13,187,70/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand One Hundred Eighty Seven and Seventy Paise) against the father of the complainant out of which he deposited Rs. 12,700/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand) on 26.03.1996 and Rs. 269/- (Rupees Two Hundred Sixty Nine) on 10.05.1996. It further alleged that during the said period, the connection was regularly used. He never completed the formalities for permanent disconnection. It further alleged that the complaint is time barred because the connection has been shown as disconnected in 1994 and the complaint has been filed in 2000.

4. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. As far as limitation is concerned as alleged by the opposite party the permanent disconnection was applied in 1994 and this complaint has been filed in 2000, but the complainant has produced the bill dated 26.07.2000 issued by the opposite party. The cau