Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. This appeal is filed by the original opposite party Nos.1 to 3 against the order dtd.02.05.2009, passed by District Consumer Forum, Bhandara, in consumer complaint bearing No.40/2009, by which, the following directions have been given.
“i. The complaint is partly allowed.
- The opposite party shall calculate the difference of amount charged for permanent electricity supply and temporary electricity supply and shall adjust the amount of difference in future electricity bills of the complainant.
The said amount be calculated from the date of providing temporary electricity supply till the date of providing permanent electricity supply.
- The opposite party shall also pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant for physical & mental harassment.
- The opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.
- The aforesaid amounts be adjusted in future bills.”
2. Advocate Mr C Kulkarni holding for Advocate Mr A V Khare is present for the appellant and he submitted that the Written Notes of Arguments filed by the appellant’s advocate may be treated as his oral argument. Advocate Mr K S Motwani is present for the respondent. We have also heard him. He has also filed Written Notes of Arguments. We have thus considered Written Notes of Arguments filed by both parties. We have also perused the copies of record of the original complaint filed before us by the appellant.
3. It is seen that the original complainant / respondent herein had made an application in the month of April 2003 to the opposite party for permanent electricity supply. She had made a deposit of Rs.10,000/- on 14.05.2003 with the opposite party for that connection. The opposite party however provided temporary connection to the complainant on 16.05.2003 as the transformer was not available for providing permanent electric connection. The opposite party issued electricity bills to the complainant from time to time, charging electricity consumption on the basis of temporary connection. However, thereupon on 02.09.2008 the complainant deposited with the opposite party Rs.5,200/- as per demand note issued by the opposite party and thereupon the opposite party provided permanent electric connection to the complainant on 04.09.2008.
4. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite party on the ground that opposite party ought to have provided permanent electric connection after the prescribed period of temporary electric connection. The complainant, therefore, claimed from the opposite party the difference of the amount recovered from him on the ground of temporary connection. The complainant had also claimed compensation with cost from the opposite party.
5. The opposite party had resisted that complaint by filing reply before the Forum. It admitted that it had suggested the complaint for installation of temporary meter till they installed separate transformer for the entire complex. However, it is the case of the opposite party that the complainant had made an application for temporary connection in the month of April 2003 and deposited Rs.10,000/- as security deposit and she had also paid the electric bills also. She did not move any application for permanent connection and did not fulfil the documents. Hence, the temporary connection was not converted into permanent connection. The permanent connection was given on 04.09.2008 when the complainant applied for the same and deposited Rs.5,200/- on 02.09.2008. Therefore, the opposite party had prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
6. The Forum below after hearing both parties partly allowed the complaint as above, accepting the aforesaid case of the complainant.
7. The learned advocate of the appellant has drawn our attention to the Rule No.8 of Conditions of Supply based on the Maharasthra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code & Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005. It shows that the period of temporary supply shall not exceed two years. But the learned advocate of the respondent submitted that the said regulations of the year 2005 are not applicable to the case of the complainant / respondent as temporary connection was given on 16.05.2003. The appellant’s advocate has not produced any material on record showing that the specific period of the temporary connection applicable to the present case. Therefore, the aforesaid regulations of 2005 are not applicable to the present case.
8. The main contention of the appellant is that the respondent herself was at fault for not applying for permanent connection prior to 04.09.2008. However, we find that the complainant had already applied for permanent connection in the month of April 2003, but the opposite party did not provide her permanent electric connection for want of transformer. It was therefore incumbent on the opposite party / appellant to take immediate step for installation of transformer and to intimate the complainant / respondent herein about installation of the transformer. However, the appellant did not take any step to install immediately the transformer and to give its intimation to the complainant / respondent. The opposite party / appellant has adduced no evidence to show as to when the requisite transformer was installed, which was the condition for giving permanent electric supply to the complainant. The opposite party cannot take benefit of deposit of Rs.5,200/- on 02.09.2008 by complainant for permanent connection when complainant had already applied to it for permanent connection and it was delayed for want of transformer. There was no fault of complainant. Hence, we hold that opposite party / appellant has rendered deficient service to the complainant by not installing transformer immediately and by not giving intimation of the same to the complainant and by recovering from her excessive charges on the basis of temporary connection for such long period from 16.05.2003 to 04.09.2008. Therefore, the Forum has rightly directed the opposite party / appellant to pay difference of that amount and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- for physical & mental harassment and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. In the result, we find no merits in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. No order as to costs in this appeal.
iii. Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
