State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
C.G. State Electrictiy Supply Company ... vs Suresh Prasad on 29 November, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
(A/11/2743)
Appeal No.462/2011
Instituted on : 18.08.2011
1.G.G. State Electricity Supply Company Limited, Through : Junior Engineer, Rajpur (C.G.)
2. Executive Engineer, C.G. State Electricity Supply Company Limited, Ambikapur (C.G.) .... Appellants.
Vs. Suresh Prasad, S/o Late Shri Ramvriksha, R/o : Village : Dadhkhadua, Police Station & Tehsil
- Rajpur, District ‐ Sarguja (C.G.) .... Respondent. PRESENT :
HONʹBLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellant.
Shri K. Anandani, for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL) DATED : 29/11/2012 PER :‐ HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT. This appeal is an appeal of the OPs/Electricity Supply Company, who has been directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja - Ambikapur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.92/2007 vide order // {PAGE } // dated 21.07.2011 to restore the electricity supply from three phase for the purpose of irrigation to the respondent/complainant within 15 days from the date of order. The respondent/complainant was also directed to produce test report of the qualified contractor within one month from the date of order. It has further been directed by the impugned order that the bills issued by the appellant company for Rs.2,666/‐ on 20.03.2006 and another bill of Rs.6,519/‐ of February, 2007, stand quashed. The appellant company has further been directed to pay Rs.2,000/‐ as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/‐ as cost of litigation to the respondent/complainant.
2. Undisputedly, the respondent/complainant is having agricultural land and he applied for providing electricity supply connection for irrigation, so that his land can be irrigated by electric motor pump to be operated on three phase. It is also not in dispute that the appellant company completed work of installation of electricity pole etc., but the supply was not started.
3. The case of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum was that the appellant company left the work incomplete and has not started electricity supply for running the irrigation pump, but in spite of that it has unnecessarily issued demand bills in the month // {PAGE } // of December, 2005 & February, 2007, though notice was already sent to the appellant company in this regard, but even then supply was not started and demand was not withdrawn, so the consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum.
4. The appellant Company in reply averred that in the year 2004, in the month of January, the work of installation of electricity supply line through pole was completed and the respondent/complainant was directed to file test report of a qualified contractor within three months, so that supply can be started, but that report was not filed by the respondent/complainant till filing of the consumer complaint before the District Forum. It has further been averred that on 24.10.2007, competent officer of the appellant company inspected the spot and found that respondent/complainant was using 3 H.P. irrigation motor pump by illegally & directly connecting from main supply line. When it was observed, then a bill was issued for demand of charges. It has further been averred that as per terms of the contract, the respondent/complainant was required to pay charges at least on minimum average basis from the date when line was installed and the report of the contractor was not submitted within stipulated period, thus the appellant company has not committed any deficiency in service in issuing bills.
// {PAGE } //
5. Learned District Forum did not agree with the defences raised by the appellant company and allowed the complaint by the impugned order.
6. Before us the appellant company has filed affidavit of Shri S.P. Markam, Assistant Engineer, C.G. State Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Rajpur, District Balrampur (C.G.) along with statement of the bills issued to the respondent/complainant in respect of use of electricity from the line which was installed for running 3 H.P. irrigation pump. On the basis of these documents, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that on 28.01.2004 when respondent/complainant was asked to submit report of a qualified contractor within a stipulated time and when such report was not submitted, then as per terms of the contract, the respondent/complainant was to pay at least the minimum charges for running the pump. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that such letter was issued and contract was also signed by the respondent/complainant, which is in possession of the appellant company.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that no such letter dated 28.01.2004 was ever received by the // {PAGE } // respondent/complainant. It was never sent by the appellant company to the respondent/complainant and no report of any qualified contractor was ever demanded. It was a cooked up story of the appellant company.
8. From the aforesaid contentions of both parties and after going through the record of the District Forum, we find that for the purpose of settling the dispute between the parties, it is necessary to go through the terms of the contract executed between the parties regarding supply of electricity. It is also necessary for the appellants to show that letter dated 28.01.2004 was actually sent to the respondent/complainant and demand was made for submitting report of a qualified contractor within stipulated period, otherwise irrespective of the fact, whether supply has been started or not, as per terms of the contract, the respondent/complainant would be required to pay charges and bills will be generated. It is also necessary to see whether thereafter bills were regularly sent by the appellants to the respondent/complainant or not. Respondent/complainant is also required to submit report of a qualified contractor, as per demand of the appellant company. For doing the entire aforesaid exercise, it appears necessary to us to remit the case back to the District Forum so that new evidence can be led by both the parties.
// {PAGE } //
9. In view of aforesaid, without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum with direction to provide opportunity of filing documents and affidavits on behalf of both parties and thereafter to decide the matter afresh on merits. Affidavit of Shri S.P. Markam, Assistant Engineer of the appellant company as well as the statement regarding bills of sanctioned load of 3 H.P., filed by the appellants before us be also sent to the District Forum along with its record. Parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 28.12.2012. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/11/2012 /11/2012