A.P.S.E.B. Rep. by Its Superintending Engineer and Another Vs. K. Narayana Murthy - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Judgment:

S. Parvatha Rao, President:

1. we do not find any merit in this appeal preferred by the opposite parties in Consumer Case No. 274/1994 questioning the order of the Visakhapatnam District Forum dated 7.11.1998. The complainant in that consumer case is the respondent before us.

2. The complainants father got the connection to his house under Service Connection No. 1183. He died sometime in the year 1982 and the complainant as his heir has been residing in that house. The complainant became the owner of that house by succession as heir of his father and he has been residing in it. He was paying the electricity charges regularly. He is an Advocate. His complaint is that all of a sudden, the connection for his house was disconnected without any notice on 13.8.1993. He gave notice to the appellants and he received a reply from the 2nd appellant on 29.9.1993 stating that the monthly slab amount of Rs. 120/- for the month of May, 1993 was not paid and therefore the disconnection was effected. The complainant stated that he paid the slab amount for the months of April, May, June, July, 1993 under original receipts and that there was no basis for disconnecting the supply of energy on the ground that he did not pay the slab amount of Rs. 120/- for May, 1993. He approached the Visakhapatnam District Forum for redress.

3. The appellants, as opposite parties in the consumer case, received notice and filed their versions stating that in the June, 1993 payment was not made by the complainant before the due date and therefore the service connection was liable for disconnection and it was accordingly disconnected. It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that no notice was necessary because in the slab card itself it was stated as follows :

“That the non-payment of charges within the specified date referred to above is liable for disconnection without any further notice. Additional charge is also payable for the belated payment.”

It was also further contended by the appellants in their version that the service connection was given in the name of the complainants father and not in the name of the complainant and therefore the complainant was not a consumer. All these contentions were rejected by the District Forum. With reference to non-payment of the amount due for the month of June, 1993 the District Forum held as follows :

“The contention of the opposite parties that complainant had not paid the electricity charges for the month of May, 1993 but when he came to the Forum he stated in his cross-examination that the complainant fails to pay the amount due for the month of June, 1993. Even assuming that the amounts are not paid for the month of June, 1993, as required under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, it is the primary duty of the opposite parties to issue an advance 7 days notice before the disconnection and without issuing the advance 7 days notice the disconnection is invalid and illegal.”

Thus the District Forum held that even assuming that the charges for the month of June, 1993 were due, disconnection without 7 clear days notice as mandated under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (‘1910 Act for short), was bad. In the result, the District Forum directed the opposite par ties to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards mental agony, Rs. 1,000/- towards illegal disconnection and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. That is questioned before us by the appellants.

4. The main contention advanced by the learned Counsel, Mr. B.P. Raju appearing for Mr. J. Siddaiah, is that in the slab card itself it was stated expressly that non-payment of charges within the specified dates would entail disconnection without any further notice and that therefore Section 24 of the 1910 Act would not be of any avail to the complainant. We are unable to agree with this contention. Section 24 contemplates that “if a person neglects to pay any charge for energy seven clear days notice has to be given before disconnection is effected”. Sub-section (1) of Section 24, which is relevant, reads as follows :

“Where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any (sum other than a charge for energy), due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charges or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply-line or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him for cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer.”

This notice is contemplated to enable the defaulter to pay the amounts due and avoid disconnection or to satisfy the Authorities concerned that there was no real default on his part. This notice is contemplated in order to satisfy the requirements of principles of natural justice and fair play. In Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board, (1995) 2 SCC 648, a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 24 comes into play when :

“(a) the consumer neglects to pay any charge for energy due from him to a licensee, or

(b) the consumer neglects to pay sums, other than a charge for energy, due from him to the licensee.” (Emphasis supplied)

and that “in these circumstances, the licensee (the Board) may after giving the consumer a written notice of not less than seven clear days cut off the supply and continue to keep the supply cut off till the consumer shall have paid the sum or sums due”. The Supreme Court further observed that Section 24 conferred a statutory right to the Board to cut off the supply and that it relieved the licensee of its obligation under Section 22 to supply energy if the consumer had not paid to it the charges for electricity supplied or where the consumer neglected to pay the same. In view of this clear interpretation of Section 24 of the 1910 Act we are clearly of the view that the condition in the slab card stating that non-payment of charges within the specified dates would entail disconnection without any further notice cannot over-ride the statutory mandate of 7 clear days notice before cutting off supply of energy under Section 24 of the 1910 Act which is binding on the Electricity Board as a licensee. We therefore do not see any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that in view of the statement under the Bill Card for electricity charges the notice under Section 24 was contracted out. As the District Forum rightly observed, the bill card was not signed by the complainant.

5. We also do not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants that as the service connection was obtained in the name of complainants father the complainant would not be treated as a consumer. It is not in dispute that the father of the complainant died two decades back and that ever since then the complainant had been in possession of the house and enjoying the supply of energy as the heir of his father and had been paying the demand charges which were being accepted by the appellants. In the circumstances they are stopped from raising that contention. Even otherwise, the complainant has to be treated as a beneficiary of the service connection.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs.

Appeal dismissed.