District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Consumer Case No. 59 of 2007



Sri J.N. Prasad s/o

Plot No. GA-4, City Centre, Sector-4, B.S.City.827004.

Dist.- Bokaro.

Versus

Jharkhand State Electricity Board vide Executive Engineer,

ITI More, Chas- Dist.- Bokaro.

Before-

S.M. Alam, President

Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member



Date of Judgment-: 06 March, 2009

Date of case filing-: 03 September 2007

-: Judgment:-

The complainant has filed the present case against the opposite party and sought direction against the opposite party to provide electric connection in the house of the complainant, cancel all the electric bills raised from February 2004 till date, stop further raising bill and Rs. 10000/- compensation for mental torture.

2 Brief facts of the case is that the complainant secured electric connection in his house situated at Man Mohan Singh Housing Colony in the last quarter of 2002. Since there was no electric power in the line of the said house since June, 2003, some miscreants stolen the entire length of 30 fit to 40 fit cable, connecting the house of the complainant from the electric pole of the opposite party some time in February 2004. The said matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party with a request to restore the electric connection in the house of the complainant but the Executive Engineer failed to take action in this regard. There is no electric connection in the house of the complainant on account of theft of electric cable but the JSEB raised electric charge bills arbitrarily without verifying cable theft. The complainant also brought this facts to the notice of the JSEB verbally and in writing and through letter dated 06.09.2005 in execution proceeding vide execution case No. 15/2003 being fought between same parties for the same house. Again on 30.03.2006 the complainant sent an application to the opposite party regarding raising of electric bill for the said house without having electric connection, the JSEB neither respondent nor initiated any steps for restoration of electric connection in the house of the complainant. The complainant has given details of bills in his complaint petition. Thus in spite of letter and reminders sent to the opposite party no steps has been taken to restore the electric connection of the complainant which is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party is liable to pay relief of the complainant.

3 After issuance of notice the opposite party appeared and filed its written statement stating therein that Junior Engineer asked to provide the power supply in the house of the complainant but whenever he went in the house of the complainant he found that house was locked. It is fact that there is no wire from the pole to the complainant’s house and it was not possible to restore the electric connection in the house of the complainant which remains close. The opposite party is ready to restore the electric connection of the complainant provided; the complainant opened the house for which the complainant should contact the Asst. Executive Engineer.

4 So far the question of raising the bill from March2004 and onward the computer was advised to stop the bill but it could not be recorded by the computer, however the bill from March, 04 to till date has been revised and the copy of revised bill is enclosed, the dues up to February, 2004 amounting to Rs. 268/- and a sum of Rs. 6000/- was adjusted so Rs. 5732/- is only balance which will be adjusted against the coming bill after restoration of power to the complainant.

5 So far deficiency on the part of the opposite party is concerned it is pertinent to mentioned here that there is no deficiency at all on the part of the opposite party, as because the opposite party several times visited the house in question for restoration of electric power, but always found the house locked, as a result of which the restoration of electric power could not be provided in the said house. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation or cost of litigation as sought in the relief and thus the present case is fit to be dismissed.

6 Both parties were heard. The case records and documents filed on behalf of the both the parties have been perused. The disconnection of Electric supply in the complainant premises in question and to theft of connecting cable since June, 2003/Feb2004 is an admitted fact. The electric supply connection has not been restored so far by the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. But it is observed that the opposite party has been arising electric bill in respect of the complainant premises for the period during which there was no electric supply connection. From the written statement of the opposite party it is found that rising of such bills as mentioned above has been admitted by the opposite party but the same has not been withdrawn as yet. In view of the above, we hold the opposite party negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant and as such it is held liable to pay relief to him.

7 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party is directed to withdraw all the bills raised in respect of the complainant’s premises for the period of non availability of electric supply connection within 30 days from the date of this order. The opposite party is also directed not to raise any electric bill in future when there is no electric supply connection in the complainant’s premises. The opposite party is further directed to provide electricity connection in the complainant’s premises when approached by the complainant.