STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP
C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/1997/1117
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District )
1. U P S E B
Barelli ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. Sri Hasan Ali Barelli ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Raj Kamal Gupta MEMBER For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 27 Nov 2017
Final Order / Judgement
RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No. 1117 of 1997
1- U.P. State Electricity Board through Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Gorabazar, Rae Bareli (through Sri S.N. Misra, Executive Engineer is made party by name.) 2- Junior Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Khero District Rae Bareli (Sri T.N. Shukla, Junior Engineer has been made party by name.)
. ...Appellants.
Versus
Sri Hasan Ali s/o Sri Khwaja Bux, R/o Village Gonha, P.S. Khero, District,
1
Rae Bareli. …Respondent. Present:-
1- Hon'ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.
Shri Deepak Mehrotra for the appellants. None for the respondent.
Date 12.1.2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma, Member)
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6.6.1997, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Rae Bareli in complaint case No.129 of 1996, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal. Facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant has got his electricity connection no.246970 for which he is paying bills regularly. On 12.3.1996, one Ram Swaroop of his village disconnected his connection illegally for which an application for reconnection was given by the complainant to the OPs. Earlier also, the connection was disconnected by Ram Swaroop against which a complaint was made by the
(2)
complainant on 15.2.1996 and the official of he OPs had got it reconnected but no action was taken against Ram Swaroop. When Ram Swaroop again disconnected his connection then on 13.3.1996 a complaint was again made against the disconnection but neither the connection was reconnected nor any action was taken against Ram Swaroop. As the complainant is a tailor hence he has to work in the night but because of lack of electricity, he is suffering loss of Rs.100.00 per day. The complainant filed a complaint in the Forum below wherein the OPs filed their WS submitting therein that if the connection was disconnected by Ram Swaroop because of personal enmity then the complaint should have been made to the police as only police could take action in such a matter. The complainant has not deposited any amount for reconnection of the connection hence, without depositing of the fee for reconnection, the connection could not be reconnected. Besides, Ram Swaroop should have been made a party in this case but that has not been done. The OP has not committed any deficiency in service, therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the ld. Forum has passed the impugned order on 6.6.1997 as under:-
" 15 15 100/-( ) 0250/- ( )
2
(3)
0-01 -02 .., , , 0 1000/- ( ) 12.03.96 "
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that the appellants have filed this appeal mainly on the grounds that the appellants have not committed any deficiency in service, still the ld. Forum has passed the impugned order which is erroneous hence, it is liable to be set aside. Heard counsel for the appellants and perused the entire records. None appeared for the respondent despite notice sent to him and service deemed sufficient as per order passed on
12.7.2017.
In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant's electricity connection was disconnected by one Ram Swaroop. It is also not disputed that when Ram Swaroop had disconnected the connection then it was got connected by the J.E. of the appellants/OPs. The disputed point according to the complainant is that when again Ram Swaroop disconnected his electricity connection then the OPs did not reconnect and thus, they committed deficiency in service. So, now it is be seen as to whether the appellants/ OPs committed any deficiency in service in not reconnecting the connection of the complainant when it was disconnected by one Ram Swaroop of the same village. If so, its effect.
(4)
In this regard, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellants that the disconnection of the aforesaid connection of the complainant was not because of any act of the appellants/OPs. It was admittedly one Ram Swaroop of the village of the complainant who had disconnected the connection and so the complainant should have made complaint in the police station for taking action against Ram Swaroop. Besides, he should have been made a party in the complaint as it was he who was responsible for making the disconnection. It is also argued by the ld. counsel for the appellants that the complainant did not deposit any reconnection fee, therefore, the reconnection could not be made as per norms as the fee for reconnection was necessary for reconnection. The complainant has not shown that he deposited the reconnection fee. Just because someone out of enmity disconnected his connection, it is not for the electricity department to reconnect that connection without taking any fee of reconnection. Under the circumstance of the case, it can not be said that the appellants/OPs had committed any deficiency in service in not reconnecting the connection without taking the reconnection fee. Thererore, the ld. forum grossly erred in holding the appellants/OPs as deficient in providing services and therefore, the impugned order can not be sustained and is liable to be dismissed and the appeal allowed.
3
(5)
ORDER
The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 6.6.1997, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Rae Bareli in complaint case No.129 of 1996 is set aside.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(Vijai Varma) (Raj Kamal Gupta) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA II
Court No.2
[HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma]
PRESIDING MEMBER
[HON'BLE MR. Raj Kamal Gupta]
MEMBER
4
Comments