JUDGMENT Delivered by Sri Surendra Kumar, Senior Member: These are two cross appeals arising out of order dated 23.08.2003 passed by the District Forum. Hardwar whereby the Electricity Department. was directed not to collect any amount in future relating to the disputed electricity connection. Cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five . Hundred) was also awarded. The complainant. Sh. Sayeed has filed Appeal No. 775 2003. Sh. Sayeed v. Executive Engineer. UPCL for the enhancement of award amount while the Electricity Department has filed Appeal No. 921/2003. Executive Engineer, UPCL Vs. Sh. Sayeed for setting aside the order. Since in both the appeals common• question of law and facts are involved, therefore both these appeals are taken together for disposal. Copy of the judgment shall be placed in .the records of both the appeals. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the complainant. Sh. Meer Hasan had taken an electricity connection on 10.10.1991 for his tubewell. He died on 26.01.1997. After his death his 6 sons are the legatheirs. He alleged that because unfortunately his tubewell failed therefore he consumed the electricity only for few days. He continued the connection in the expectation of again boring but after many efforts his tubewell could not be successful. Therefore his father applied on permanent disconnection of his connection on 26.10.1994, on which the Electricity Department made imlestigation and according to their direction. The consumer deposited Rs. 100/- (Rupee$ Hundred) on 01.11.1994 to the cashier. But still the permanent disconnection was not done. His father was about 90 years of age, he tried hard for permanent disconnection and he paid 20-30,000/- to employees of the opposite party and had to sell his land so that he can complete the procedure of permanent discc5n.nection of his connection. He deposited all the bills but the employees of the opposite party were not satisfied and in the end his father died on 26.01.1997. After that his elder brother Sh. Musharraf also made man!! efforts for disconnection. but he was not successful. He deposited all the bills but the employees of the opposite party were not satisfied and in the end his father died on 26.01.1997. After that his elder brother Sh. Musharraf also made man!! efforts for disconnection. but he was not successful. At last the complainant went to the office of the opposite party, he was asked to give his affidavit, which he produced, in the office of the opposite party on 24.031998 on which the opposite party sent a letter on 01.05.1998 and they demanded the receipt of electricity fees and passbook, which he sent on 12,08.1998 but still the permanent disconnection was not done. But in stead a bill of Rs. 18,015/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Fifteen) was sent. Therefore' he filed the complaint. 3. The opposite party fired written statement and admitted that power connection in question is in the name of Sh. Meer Hasan. he expired in 1997 but the complainant has not done anything for the change of the name. It admitted the deposit of Hs. 1001- (Rupees Hundred) as permanent disconnection charges but alleged that according to the rules, this amount is Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred) and Rs. 100/- (Rupees Hundred) are deposited for reconnection charges. It admitted that in March 1996 there were dues of Rs. 13,187,70/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand One Hundred Eighty Seven and Seventy Paise) against the father of the complainant out of which he deposited Rs. 12,700/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand) on 26.03.1996 and Rs. 269/- (Rupees Two Hundred Sixty Nine) on 10.05.1996. It further alleged that during the said period, the connection was regularly used. He never completed the formalities for permanent disconnection. It further alleged that the complaint is time barred because the connection has been shown as disconnected in 1994 and the complaint has been filed in 2000. 4. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. As far as limitation is concerned as alleged by the opposite party the permanent disconnection was applied in 1994 and this complaint has been filed in 2000, but the complainant has produced the bill dated 26.07.2000 issued by the opposite party. The cause of action is for disconnection and raising charges thereafter. Till the disconnection is done and the charges are rated the complainant will have continuing cause of action. Therefore the complaint is not barred by time. 5. The cause of action is for disconnection and raising charges thereafter. Till the disconnection is done and the charges are rated the complainant will have continuing cause of action. Therefore the complaint is not barred by time. 5. The next question is whether the complainant is a consumer or not? The complainant is admittedly the son of the consumer, Sh. Meer Hasan. After his death, he is his legalhir, therefore the complainant is the beneficiary of the electricity department. It has been held in the ruling reported in 1994 (3) CPJ 373, The Asst. Accounts' Officer ERO, APSEB Vs. Chundi Venkateshwarlu that a tenant paying. electricity charges is a consumer of the electricity board as be is the beneficiary. It has been held in the ruling reported in 1993 (1) CPJ 2991993 (2) CPR 320 (M.P.), Harish Kumar Vs. M.P.E.B. that after the death of the father, all heirs are owners and' if any of the heirs uses the connection, it will be deemed that the use is with the approval of others. 6. The Learned Counsel for the electricity department referred the definition of consumer as given in the Regulations 1984. According to which, 'Consumer' means any person who is supplied with energy by the Board and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected with the works of the board for the purpose of receiving electrical energy and also includes an intending consumer and a consumer who has been disconnected. Thus only the actual consumers are not consumers within this definition, even the prospective consumers are consumers. Some notification has been shown to show that when there is change of -tenancy and mutation of names of consumers, the Executive Engineers shall within their respective jurisdictions dispose off the cases relating to change of tenancy ,and mutation of names. This is only a procedure for the mutation and herein also it is said that no mutation shall be done till the outstanding dues are paid. It is therefore clear that the dues can be realied from the heirs as well and if it can be realized from them they have got every right to challenge. He further referred the ruling reported in II (1995) CPJ 228, Sitaram yadav Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Another, This ruling will not apply to the facts of the present case because therein no deposit was made at all. He further referred the ruling reported in II (1995) CPJ 228, Sitaram yadav Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Another, This ruling will not apply to the facts of the present case because therein no deposit was made at all. The relationship of a consumer and service giver has not at ail established. The ruling reported in III (1995) CPJ 162, Naresh Chander Vs, S.D.O, H.S.E.B. is rather in favour of the complainant . The connection was in the name of the father. The father died. The connection continued in his name. It was held that after the death, the heirs were liable to apply for mutation and only thereafter he will be a consumer till then he has no right to maintain the present complaint. In this case the facts are other wise. The consumer has applied for disconnection. If the heirs are consumers without the mutation, the disconnection should have been permanently done. There is no question of mutation for the continuance of the connection and if the heirs are not ~onsumers 'after the death of the deceased no bill can be raised against a dead person. A dead person can never deposit a bill and if the heirs are not consumers, they had got absolutely no liability to deposit the alleged dues. Similar is the position with the ruling reported in IV (2003) CPJ 57 (NC), Ashok Kumar Vs. SDO, Haryana Vidyut Parasaran Nigam Ltd & Another. In all these rulings, the 'connection has continued after the death and there was user of the connection. What was directed that the heir should have applied for disconnection but here the deceased has also applied for disconnection? His application should have been immediately allowed on deposit of the fee for disconnection. The electricity department is not made for technicalities, if there was no performa, it could have collected it from the complainant but as soon as the application is made, user is stopped., There is no supply, the liability to pay is extinguished. 7. It has also been held in the ruling reported in [2002 (48) ALR 392], M/s. Narain Engineering Vs. 7. It has also been held in the ruling reported in [2002 (48) ALR 392], M/s. Narain Engineering Vs. State of U.P. and others by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad that where there is an application for permanent disconnection, that must be done within 3 days by the officers of the department and if it has not been done, the electricity department was not entitled to make recovery after the period of application for disconnection. The ruling of the Hon'ble High Court is binding on all the Forums and Commissions. 8. As far as compensation is concerned, the complainant filed the affidavit of his father dated 28.10.1994 of his electricity connection. This letter also bears the signatures of acting Pradhan and also other members. It also carries the order of cashier of Assistant Engineer, Revenue that, "Please deposit Rs. 100/- (Rupees Hundred). as disconnection charges." This order is dated 31.10.1994'and in this order it is written to deposit Rs. 100/- (Rupees Hundred) on 01.11.1994 and in the end the Development Officer has written the date as 28.10.1994. This has not been challenged by the complainant. Not only this, regarding this permanent disconnection. Sh. Sayeed Ahmed sent a letter dated 12.08.1998 to the Executive Engineer, Vidhyat Vitran Khand, Roorkee and also produced the photocopy of the affidavit. This letter also clarifies that the opposite party started procedure for disconnection in 1994 and it has not been completed till 1998 and after that also the bills have been sent to the complainant. No bill could have been sent in the name of a dead person. It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the electricity department that the death of the consumer was not reported to the department. There mayor may not be report, if the contract expires on the death, the electricity department should know it. Even its inspectors, line men and meter readers a lungs visit the premises and it is their duty to gather information about the user, theft, mutation and pilferage, etc. The Electricity Department cannot impose liability on the heirs on the one hand by saying that they are not consumer and on the other hand by issuing bills even after- the death of the consumer in whose name there was connection. In March 1999, a sum of Rs.11,112.50/- was shown as arrears, although in the last hill total outstanding amount has been shown as Rs. In March 1999, a sum of Rs.11,112.50/- was shown as arrears, although in the last hill total outstanding amount has been shown as Rs. 18,015/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Fifteen) .. 9. Now it is clear that the opposite party was definitely deficient in its service by not permanently disconnecting the connection of the complainant. It was argued that the application is not on performa. The employees of the opposite party were so negligent that even after deposit to disconnection- charges as Rs. 100/(Rupees Hundred) by the complainant, they never disconnected the complaint. When they accepted the charges, they should have called the performa. It is not said that the complainant was using electricity even after 1994 when the tubewell was not running. To the contrary the complainant filed affidavit before the department on 24.03.1998 that after 10.04.1994 no electricity was consumed. The complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation and the Learned Forum has rightly allowed a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) to be paid to the complainant by the electricity department as cost of litigation. Since the electricity was not used, there should not be charges. 10. Now coming to the appeal of the complainant. Sh. Sayeed has filed the appeal for the return of the amount deposited by him. The complainant wilfully deposited the: amount of Rs. 12,700/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred) as Rs. 269/(Rupees Two Hundred Sixty Nine). At least it is not said that he deposited these amount under protest and if he deposited the amount wilfully which was not pending against him as balance dues, there is nothing like deficiency in service d the electricity department. If he deposited the amount wilfully and the amount was not due against him, he can go to the Civil Court or Prescribed Authority to recover the said amount, because there being no deficiency in service, that is not a consumer dispute. There is no question of any refund However, the complainant is free to file a civil suit for the recovery of the amount and if he prefers to do so, the observations recorded by the Learned Forum and this Commission shall not be treated in any way as an expression of opinion on any of the points involved in the case or likely to be involved in the regular suit. 11. 11. The net result is that there is no force in either o~ the appeals and both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. ORDER Appeal No. 775/2003, Sh. Sayeed Vs. Executive Engineer, UPCL and Appeal No. 921/2003, Executive Engineer. UPCL Vs. Sh Sayeed is hereby dismissed. Cost of both the appeals shall be easy.