(Delivered on 6/12/2017)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

1. The present appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Gondia passed in complaint No. 72/2014, dated 20/4/2015, directing the opposite party ( In short OP) Nos. 1 and 2 to provide Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant  for causing mental torture and agony for illegal disconnection of electric supply and to provide Rs. 5,000/-  as a cost of the complaint severally or together in the span of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The complainant in short filed a complaint that she has proprietary business with a electrical connection of the opposite party  Nos. 1 and 2 ( OP in short). She was given a wrong bill of Rs. 35,500/- on 15/11/2012 for consumption of 620 units. Her electrical connection was then disconnected by the OPs. Hence she repeatedly requested OPs to correct the bill given to her  and also to check the bill for excessive units and restore the electrical connection. The OPs asked her to deposit the entire bill. Hence she (complainant ) deposited Rs. 10,000/- on 6/11/2012 and Rs. 13,000/- on 7/2/2012 with OPs. Then her meter was examined and she was given a bill of Rs. 2,540/-  which she paid on 15/2/2013 after which her electrical connection was restored.
3. The complainant  therefore filed a complaint  for not correcting the bill for 14 months  and for causing her physical and mental harassment and causing loss to her with a prayer to provide her the compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/-  for illegal disconnection  and Rs. 60,000/-  for physical and mental harassment with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum.
4. On notice, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 countered the complaint by written version stating that the electrical connection given is of  15 HP for  industrial purpose  for running the industry. Hence the complainant is not a consumer and  complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the Forum.
5. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 also submitted that the complainant was given the bill of Rs. 35,500/- for the period from 28/9/2012 to 25/10/2012 but it was given by calculation load, demand charges, energy charges, electricity duty and penal charges, charges for excess demand etc. The complaint was not a regular payer of the electric bill. The electrical connection was disconnected but later on it  was reconnected on payment of bill amount. Hence claimed no deficiency in service with a request to dismiss the complaint.
6. The learned Forum held that the complainant is running the industry to earn her livelihood and hence she  a consumer as defined under  Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant was given the bill of Rs. 35,500/- for 620 units which she disputed on 15/11/2012 and requested to correct it. She also deposited Rs. 10,000/- on 6/11/2012, Rs. 13,000/- on 17/12/2012 and Rs. 2,540/- on 15/2/2013 to the OP. The OP corrected the disputed bill  on 21/12/2013 and gave her the corrected credit of Rs. 19,735.94/- on 21/12/2013. The OPs restored the electrical connection which was disconnected on 15/11/2012 by adjusting excessive amount.
7. The learned Forum further held that  the OPs took one year for recalculation of the bill but disconnected the supply when the provisional amount was paid. The OPs also did not issue a notice for disconnection of electric supply  which is required by the Electricity Act. This in ordinate delay for recalculation of amount is a deficiency in service and hence passed the order as above.
8. Aggrieved against the order, the original complainant has filed this  appeal. Hence is referred as appellant. Her husband remained present on her behalf as legal representative. The original OPs  are referred as respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
9. The appellant’s advocate made submission as per allegations made in the complaint and argued that in spite of the fact that the learned Forum found that there was deficiency in service by the respondent still the learned Forum did not give sufficient compensation to the appellant  and gave a totally less  compensation when the appellant was required to close the industry and suffer financially as well as  goodwill loss in her profession causing her hardship in her life. Hence requested to provide the compensation as claimed  in the complaint.
10. The advocate for the respondent on the other hands  submitted that the controversy in the case of the appellant is regarding the bill of electricity given to her on 30/12/2012 of Rs. 35,000/-. The appellant subsequently paid the electricity bill and hence the supply was restored.  It is submitted that the supply was actually disconnected on 4/7/2013 and was restored on 20/12/2013 indicating that the supply was disconnected only for four months and was not disconnected for 14 months as is alleged falsely by the appellant.
11. The advocate for the respondent further  submitted that the appellant is using a 15 HP industrial purpose connection for running a plastic industry. Hence cannot be  accepted to be running it as a source of livelihood. Hence the appellant cannot be called as Consumer. However the learned Forum wrongly held the appellant to be Consumer.
12. The advocate for the appellant further submitted that when the appellant was not in a position to pay the bill of 35,000/-, how can she claim to be earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month to claim the excessive compensation as per  her complaint.
13. We considered the contentions of both the parties. We find that though the appellant has submitted that her electrical connection was disconnected but has not given the exact date on which the connection was disconnected which the advocate for respondent has shown to be  4/7/2013, prior to which the appellant has repeatedly given the applications  for correction of the bill.
14.  We find that the appellant has given repeated application to the respondent requesting that she is given the several  bills with a very less consumption but with a very high bill amount and was making a request either to explain her the billing procedure or to correct the bills. We find that when the appellant had paid the bill of the date 3/10/2012 which was paid on 10/9/2012 she got the bill of Rs. 34,670/- in which  the charges for excess demand are shown as Rs. 16,770/- whereas the bill is marked as provisional and the energy charges are shown to be Rs. 4,346/-. The appellant has also submitted a duplicate bill dated 10/12/2013  which is of Rs. 18,230/- in which the Deputy Executive Engineer has given  the online credit of Rs. 19,738.94/- 
15. We find  that  the appellant has been making repeated request to the respondent for explanation, the respondent has not given any explanation or any clarification to the queries made by the appellant. We also find that no notice was issued to the appellant for disconnecting her supply specifying the arrears generated by her  and the requirement of paying them prior to this connection. There is no letter from the respondent informing the appellant that her electrical connection is restored and her bill payment cycle is regularized.
16. The respondent has also not explained in their written version as to how they took the decision to disconnect the electric supply and  was it disconnected and what was the reading at the time of disconnection and  when was it restored and  why was it restored and what was the reading at the time of restoration. The respondent has just submitted unsupported version to justify their say. The advocate for the respondent showed us the letter of the appellant to conjure that the supply was disconnected on 4/7/2012 and was restored on 20/12/2013 to show that the supply was disconnected for four months.
17. The learned Forum has rightly held that non-explanation of the query raised by the appellant and non correction of the bill for such a long period of one year and then giving her the credit after making her go through the torture of disconnection  is a negligence and deficiency in service and hence has provided a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
18. We find that as the bills given by the respondent are all of high amount,  it can safely be held that the appellant was generating an income of  Rs. 25,000/- per month from her business which was for  maintaining her livelihood by means of self employment.  Hence for disconnection of four months she deserves to get the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and  a litigation charge of Rs. 10,000/-. We therefore partly allow the appeal and pass the order as below.

ORDER

1. The appeal is partly allowed.
2. The amount of compensation given in clause No. 1 of the Forum order is raised from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- given in clause No. 2 towards cost is raised from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-
3. Rest of the impugned order is confirmed.
4. Parties to bear their own cost.
5. Copy of order be provided to both the parties, free of cost.