(Date 13/12/2017)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

1. The instant appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Gondia passed in complaint No. 68/2014 dated 20/4/2015 dismissing the complaint.
2. The complainant in short filed a complaint that he is a consumer of the opposite party ( in short OPs) Nos. 1 and 2 and is using the electricity for industrial use and is paying the bill regularly and on 11/8/2012, he deposited Rs. 56,000/- However the OP Nos. 1 and 2 disconnected the supply and  when he enquired he was given a bill  of Rs. 20,800/- in the month  of June 2013. He then paid Rs. 10,000/- on 24/1/2014 and Rs. 10,840/- on 4/3/2014 and requested to restore his electricity. The OPs then asked him to deposit Rs. 100/- as reconnection charges which also he paid on 17/9/2014. Still then the OPs are not restoring the electrical connection to the complainant. Hence he filed a complaint with a request to direct the OPs to provide him the damages of Rs. 96,0000/- for illegal disconnection of electricity and Rs. 10,00,000/- for  mental agony  with interest at the rate of 18%  per annum upon it.
3. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 on notice appeared and countered the complaint by stating that the complainant has taken the electrical connection for industrial purpose. Hence cannot be called as consumer  and the complaint is non tenable. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 further submitted that the complainant did not pay the bill of the electricity. Hence the electrical connection was disconnected temporality and when he did not pay the charges for three months, it was permanently disconnected. Ones the connection is permanently disconnected, the consumer has to obtain a new connection by following all formalities.
4. The learned Forum considered the contentions of both the parties and held that the complainant is running a small proprietory unit to earn his livelihood. Hence he is a consumer. However held that his electrical connection was disconnected in February 2013 for non-payment of bill from 11/8/2012 amounting to Rs. 14,668.55/- after issuing a proper notice. The OP then permanently disconnected the electric supply on 26/2/2013 as the arrears were not paid by the complainant and removed the meter. The complainant deposited the arrears after  six months after the permanent disconnection of electric supply. Hence the supply cannot be restored. Hence as per the reconnection rule, the complainant has to take a new connection by following the regular procedure. Hence the OP did not commit any deficiency in service and thus passed the order supra.
5. Aggrieved against the order, the complainant filed an appeal. Hence is referred as appellant who appeared in person. The original Ops are referred as respondent.
6. The advocate of appellant reiterated  case of appellant as  set out in the complaint and submitted that he deposited the arrears. However the OP did not restore the connection and caused him the loss and mental agony which he deserves to get.
7. The advocate for respondent on the other hand showed us the regular letter sent by the respondent to the appellant stating that he did not pay the arrears. Hence the connection was disconnected in December 2012 and when he  did not submit the arrears, it was finally and permanently disconnected on 26/2/2013. The appellant filed an application to get the bill after disconnection of the supply and deposited the arrears after 11 months. Hence now the supply cannot be restored and the appellant is required to get the reconnection after making compliance as per rules. The appellant again deposited the amount for reconnection after five months. Hence  he could not be given the restoration of the electric supply.
8. We considered the contentions of both the parties. We find that the appellant has claimed that he is a partner of the appellant and has a industrial connection of electricity  of 67 HP Load which clearly shows that it is a industrial connection and it is not meant for the livelihood of the appellant of which the appellant is a partner. It shows that the appellant cannot be called as consumer and the complaint itself could not stand in the jurisdiction of the consumer Forum.
9. We further find that the respondent has  given a systematic letter  to the appellant dated 3/1/2015 in which the respondent has explained that because of non-payment of electrical charges connection of the appellant was disconnected on 11/8/2012. He thereafter did not pay the arrears, the collection was permanently disconnected on 26/12/2013. The appellant thereafter paid the arrears but  paid after 11 months and hence he cannot be given the restoration of the old connection and hence is required to take new connection. He was wrongly asked to deposit Rs. 100/- for the restoration of the connection by a lower functionary of the respondent.
10. We find that the appellant being a industrial consumer and the business being not to earn his livelihood, he  cannot claim the status of consumer and his complaint cannot be accepted by the consumer Forum. We also find that as he did not pay the arrears, the connection was appropriately disconnected and was finally disconnected. Hence the appellant is required to take a fresh connection from the respondent by completing all legal formalities.

11.  We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as is rightly held by the learned Forum. Hence the order of the learned Forum  deserves to be confirmed. Hence we confirm it.

ORDER

1. The appeal is dismissed.  
2. The order of the learned Forum is confirmed.  
3. Parties to bear their own cost.  
4. Copy of the order be provided to both the parties, free of cost.