ORDER (Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member): This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 03.01.2012 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 332 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and cancelled the notice dated 26.08.2010 sent by the Electricity Department and also directed the Electricity Department to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages within one month from the date of the order. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant-Sh. Yusuf has taken an electricity connection No. D-3/520096 from the opposite party-Electricity Department for his tubewell situated at Mauja Nanheda, Anantpur. Later on the said tubewell/boring failed and the complainant had no need to carry on this electricity connection, therefore, he applied in the office of Electricity Department for permanent disconnection of the electricity connection and deposited a fee of Rs. 200/- for disconnection according to the rules of Electricity Department vide receipt No. 38 dated 07.03.1998. The complainant also deposited Rs. 1,500/-, which were outstanding dues against him, through receipt No. 24 dated 07.03.1998. Despite depositing the above noted fee and outstanding dues by the complainant, the opposite party sent so many bills to him, feeling aggrieved the complainant filed a consumer complaint No. 209 of 2007; Yusuf vs. Executive Engineer, UPCL, EDD, Roorkee, Haridwar. The District Forum passed an order dated 03.03.2008, thereby cancelled all the bills issued after 07.03.1998 and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- against the Electricity Department. The opposite party did not comply with the order of District Forum, therefore, the complainant filed an Execution Application No. 11 of 2009 before the District Forum, where the opposite party has also filed objections on false grounds. The District Forum rejected the objections filed by the opposite party and again ordered to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. Due to execution proceedings and order of District Forum passed against the Electricity Department, the Electricity Department feeling aggrieved sent a notice dated 26.08.2010 to the complainant to deposit the outstanding dues of Rs. 4,628/-, whereas there was no dues against the complainant. The complainant had already deposited Rs. 1,500/-. 2,000/- to the complainant. Due to execution proceedings and order of District Forum passed against the Electricity Department, the Electricity Department feeling aggrieved sent a notice dated 26.08.2010 to the complainant to deposit the outstanding dues of Rs. 4,628/-, whereas there was no dues against the complainant. The complainant had already deposited Rs. 1,500/-. The opposite party/Electricity Department wants to take revenge from the complainant, therefore, showing incorrect dues against the complainant, sent the notice dated 26.08.2010. In the objections, the Electricity Department had never shown any outstanding dues before 07.03.1998 against the complainant. The complainant has pleaded that after deposition of the last bill, receipt for the permanent disconnection is made and the complainant after depositing last bill also deposited Rs. 200/- vide receipt No. 38 for permanent disconnection of electricity connection. The opposite party is showing incorrect dues against the complainant. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. The electricity connection of the complainant was already disconnected in the year 1998 and the letter No. 4/2006 dated 26.08.2010 of opposite party for Rs. 4,628/- regarding the electricity connection No. D-3/520096 is incorrect. 3. The opposite party-Electricity Department has filed the preliminary objections/written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant has no locus standi to file and press the present claim because the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act in view of the definition of consumer which read as under Consumer Protection Act Section 2(d)(i & ii) because the alleged connection was permanently disconnected and the name of the complainant was struck off in the record of the opposite party vide order dated 03.03.2008 of the District Forum in complaint No. 209 of 2007; Yusuf vs. Executive Engineer and its Execution No. 11 of 2009. Now the alleged connection is not existed in the name of the complainant, therefore, he is not a consumer of the electricity department/opposite party and complaint is not maintainable. Para No. 3 of the complaint is admitted to the extent that in the complaint No. 209 of 2007; Yusuf vs. Executive Engineer, the District Forum passed a judgment dated 07.03.2008 and for the compliance, the complainant filed Execution No. 11 of 2009 before the District Forum, which was decided by the District Forum in full satisfaction of the parties. Para No. 3 of the complaint is admitted to the extent that in the complaint No. 209 of 2007; Yusuf vs. Executive Engineer, the District Forum passed a judgment dated 07.03.2008 and for the compliance, the complainant filed Execution No. 11 of 2009 before the District Forum, which was decided by the District Forum in full satisfaction of the parties. The real facts are that the District Forum passed the order in the said complaint that the complaint is allowed for the payment of Rs. 2,000/- as the expenses and also order to dismiss the bills of the complainant after 07.03.1998 from the date of P.D. (permanent disconnection). In the said judgment the District Forum did not pass any order to restrain the opposite party for recovery of the outstanding dues before 07.03.1998. The complainant has concealed this fact. Therefore, the opposite party is legally entitled to recover the outstanding dues before 07.03.1998 from the complainant and on this ground the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is incorrect in saying that the opposite party send him a wrong notice of Rs. 4,628/- and no outstanding dues of the opposite party against him and opposite party wants to take the revenge against him. The entire allegations made are totally false and fabricated without any supporting document of the same. The opposite party is legally entitled to recover the outstanding dues from the complainant. After deposit the permanent disconnection fee and completion of the process, i.e. disconnection, the department checked the account of the consumer and after adjustment of the security, demand of the outstanding dues sent to the consumer. The demand of outstanding dues is not a deficiency in service. The alleged electricity connection is not existed in the name of the complainant, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. No cause of action arise for filing of complaint. The complainant is trying to evade the payment of outstanding dues raised by the opposite party-Electricity Department. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 03.01.2012 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the Electricity Department has filed the present appeal. 5. Sh. S.M. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Sh. Musharaff Ali-respondent No. 1/1 S/o Late Sh. Yusuf-respondent, appeared in person before this Commission. Aggrieved by the said order, the Electricity Department has filed the present appeal. 5. Sh. S.M. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Sh. Musharaff Ali-respondent No. 1/1 S/o Late Sh. Yusuf-respondent, appeared in person before this Commission. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sh. Musharaff Ali in person on behalf of the respondent and have also perused the record. 6. The complainant, in his consumer complaint, has alleged that an electricity connection No. D-3/520096 was taken by the complainant for his tubewell situated at Village Nanheda, Anantpur. Later on his tubewell/boring failed, therefore, there was no need of electricity connection resulting which the complainant had applied for permanent disconnection in the office of the Electricity Department and deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- towards fee. The complainant also pleaded that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,500/- vide receipt No. 24 dated 07.03.1998 against the outstanding dues in the office of Electricity Department. Even then, the opposite party sent false electricity bills to him, therefore, he filed a consumer complaint No. 209 of 2007; Yusuf vs. Executive Engineer, which was decided by the District Forum, Haridwar on 03.03.2008. The District Forum has cancelled all the electricity bills issued after 07.03.1998 and imposed Rs. 2,000/- as fine on the Electricity Department. The opposite party did not comply the order of the District Forum, therefore, the complainant filed execution application No. 11 of 2009 and the District Forum rejected the objections of the opposite party and again imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on the opposite party. 7. There is no dispute that respondent Sh. Yusuf Ali (deceased) had taken electricity connection for his tubewell from the opposite party-U.P.C.L. There is also no dispute that due to failure of the boring/tubewell of respondent, he applied for permanent disconnection and deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- as fee towards permanent disconnection in the office of Electricity Department. The bills issued by the Electricity Department after 07.03.1998 were cancelled by the order of District Forum on 03.03.2008, which is also admitted by the appellants. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent had applied for permanent disconnection on 07.03.1998 and also deposited Rs. 1,500/- on the same date in the office of appellants. The bills issued by the Electricity Department after 07.03.1998 were cancelled by the order of District Forum on 03.03.2008, which is also admitted by the appellants. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent had applied for permanent disconnection on 07.03.1998 and also deposited Rs. 1,500/- on the same date in the office of appellants. Learned counsel also submitted that the District Forum passed a judgment in the consumer complaint No. 209 of 2007; Yusuf vs. Executive Engineer and dismissed the bills issued to the complainant after 07.03.1998, i.e., from the date of permanent disconnection, but the District Forum did not pass any order to restrain the opposite party-Electricity Department for recovery of outstanding dues before 07.03.1998. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellants are legally entitled to recover the outstanding dues before 07.03.1998 from the complainant-respondent, for which a notice of Rs. 4,628/- was sent to the respondent. The impugned order dated 03.01.2012 passed by the District Forum to cancel the notice dated 26.08.2010 is illegal and without jurisdiction. There is no justification to impose an excessive cost of Rs. 5,000/- in the circumstances of the case. Learned counsel also submitted that there was no dispute involved in the consumer complaint No. 209 of 2007 in respect of dues prior to the alleged permanent disconnection, i.e., on 07.03.1998. The dues in question, i.e., Rs. 4,628/- related to the period prior to that and the same was payable. The consumer complaint No. 209 of 2007 was decided on 03.03.2008 and the permanent disconnection was prepared in the year 2009. There was no dispute at that time regarding the dispute prior to 07.03.1998 in the said case, nor there was any occasion to plead for the past dues. Hence, the question of making any assertion about the same in the written statement in that case did not arise. The District Forum did not pass any order regarding the demand prior to that date. Per contra, the respondent-Sh. Musharaff Ali has submitted that he had deposited the outstanding dues on 07.03.1998 and no amount was due against him after that date. 9. Learned District Forum while deciding the consumer complaint No. 332 of 2010 expressed views that as the opposite party has not disclosed in the written statement any outstanding amount of Rs. 4,628/- due against the complainant, it is carelessness of the department, which shows deficiency in services. 9. Learned District Forum while deciding the consumer complaint No. 332 of 2010 expressed views that as the opposite party has not disclosed in the written statement any outstanding amount of Rs. 4,628/- due against the complainant, it is carelessness of the department, which shows deficiency in services. The appellants have filed office memo dated 25.03.2009 (Paper No. 15) by which Executive Engineer of Electricity Department has mentioned that up to the date of temporary disconnection on 26.03.1998, there were an outstanding dues of Rs. 4,628/- towards holder of the connection and an amount of Rs. 1,52,017/- which were shown outstanding against the consumer from the month of March, 1998 to February, 2009 has been cancelled from the account of connection holder. The appellants have also filed billing statement of electricity connection No. D-3/520096 in which it is mentioned that there were outstanding dues of Rs. 5,928- against the consumer of Electricity Department in the month of March, 1998 and the consumer paid Rs. 1,500/- in the same month and the balance was Rs. 4,428/- plus cost of eight meters cable Rs. 200/- and the total was 4,628/- outstanding against the complainant-respondent on the basis of permanent disconnection report of Junior Engineer of the Department. The document paper No. 17 of the appeal reveals the date of temporary disconnection as 26.03.1998 and the date of permanent disconnection is 24.04.1998. The Executive Engineer-Sh. Rahul Jain of UPCL had filed his affidavit in evidence before the District Forum and deposed that the complainant is incorrect in saying that the opposite party sent him a wrong notice of Rs. 4,628/- and there were no outstanding dues of the opposite party against the complainant. This affidavit was never controverted by the respondent before the District Forfum. Therefore, it is clear that before 07.03.1998, i.e., the date of deposition of fee for permanent disconnection as well as deposition of Rs. 1,500/- by the respondent, there were an outstanding dues of Rs. 4,628/- against the respondent. In this way, the District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which cannot legally be sustained. 1,500/- by the respondent, there were an outstanding dues of Rs. 4,628/- against the respondent. In this way, the District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which cannot legally be sustained. So far the cancellation of notice dated 26.08.2010 is concerned, the District Forum has passed a reasoned order and there is no illegality and irregularity regarding the cancellation of notice, but so far the outstanding amount due before 07.03.1998 is concerned, the District Forum has not considered the facts and circumstances and the evidence filed by the opposite party-Electricity Department before the District Forum. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 03.01.2012 requires modification up to the extent that the respondent shall pay Rs. 4,628/- towards outstanding amount due against him to the opposite party-Electricity Department within one month from the date of this order. The order regarding payment of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages is also not reasonable and is liable to be quashed. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 03.01.2012 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar regarding cancellation of notice dated 26.08.2010 is hereby upheld and the order regarding the payment of Rs, 5,000/- as damages is quashed. The respondent shall pay Rs. 4,628/-, as outstanding dues towards him before 07.03.1998, to the appellants-Electricity Department within one month from the date of this order. No order as to costs.