Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No. 2343 of  2004

The Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution

Division-II, Ghazipur.                                          …Appellant.

Sanad Kumar for M/s S.K. Engineering Works,

Mohal Lal Ka Pokhara, Shahar, Gazipur.       .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Deepak Mehrotra, Advocate for appellant.

Sri Manoj Mohan, Advocate for respondent.

Date 2.5.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This Appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 29.07.2004  passed by Learned District Consumer Forum, Ghazipur in Complaint Case no.217 of 2000, Sanad Kumar Vs. Executive Engineer, Ghazipur.

The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the impugned judgment is absolutely illegal, unjust and arbitrary. The impugned judgment has been passed without taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The complainant’s case was based upon false facts. He has concealed a lot of material facts and in his second complaint, i.e. the instant one, which is registered as Case no.217 of 2000. The complainant did not mention in his complaint no.217 of 2000 that he had filed an earlier case registered as Case no.45 of 1995, against an assessment bill prepared on the basis of the inspection in which he was found using 27

(2)

HP load instead of 15 HP sanctioned load and the opposite party had also filed its reply to the Complaint. Realising the weakness of his earlier case and also correctness of the charges of illegal use of power the complainant dropped interest in the pairvi of the case and allowed it to be dismissed.

Initially the second complaint was intentionally filed with the relief regarding the alleged incorrect bills issued after the alleged disconnection dated 24 July 1997. But subsequently, by moving an Amendment application, the complainant brought the matter of inspection/raid and assessment bill to this second complaint also. The opposite party raised the objection with respect to the maintainability of the complaint and made a special prayer for herring and disposal of these objections before proceeding with the case further. But the learned District Forum did not at all consider this and decided the case on the basis of preliminary objections without affording any opportunity to the opposite party to file detailed written statement. Mere depositing of permanent disconnection fee does not entitle a default and charged consumer for voluntary permanent discussion. The consumer seeking permanent disconnection must make an application in this regard and must clear all his dues outstanding till the date.

Admittedly the complainant was in heavy arrears comprising of monthly consumption bills and of assessment charges. Till 15 July 1995, a sum of Rs.1,46,671.69 was outstanding against him and there was no question of voluntary disconnection. The fact that there were dues

(3)

outstanding against the complainant at the time of his depositing permanent disconnection fee in 1996 is also evident from the fact that he had made the payment of dues partly in 1997 and also in 2001 without any protest. The learned Forum has been confused and misguided by the complainant by producing another report of inspection alleged to be made by Electrical Inspector on 21 December 1991. This report is unbelievable as the Electrical I