A-Z MARBLES And CHEMICALS SIRMOUR, H.P. vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board

BY this complaint, the complainant has prayed for total compensation of Rs. 9,18,000/- for the loss suffered by him on account of delayed release of electric connection for an extended load of 60 KW as a result of which his unit could not become operational for electricity with effect from 1990 to August, 1992.

THE brief relevant facts set out in the complaint are that in pursuance of the incentives offered to the entrepreneurs for setting up industrial units by the State Government in Himachal Pradesh, the complainant wanted to establish industry based on marble in Paonta Sahib in view of the availability of abundant limestone deposits and supply of power in the area - the essential inputs for establishment of such an industry. THE complainant for setting up industry, not only invested his belongings for the purchase of land, raising building complex thereupon and installation of machinery at Purewala, Paonta Sahib, but also obtained loan from Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation in 1990 for an amount of Rs. 9.8 lakhs. THE complainant applied for 75 KW of power required for the Project on 17.2.1987 to the opposite party - H.P. State Electricity Board and the opposite party intimated that the proposed supply of electricity could be made available subject to certain terms. However, the complainant later on realised that only 60 KW of power is required for the operation of the unit instead of 75 KW and the opposite party was accordingly informed. THE opposite party directed the complainant to deposit Rs. 600/- towards non-refundable advance security fee for commitment of power in addition to Rs. 5,400/- to be deposited alongwith A & A form. Ultimately, the opposite party sanctioned the connection for a maximum load of 60 KW vide Annexure A-5 on 22-6-1988 subject to certain conditions. Later on, the complainant again deposited Rs. 22,695/- as estimated cost of the electric connection which includes the cost of transformer as demanded by the opposite party vide Annexure A-7 dated 15-5-1990. Whatever was required and demanded by the opposite party, the complainant complied with and according to the complainant it was the duty of the opposite party to release the connection for the extended load of 60 KW immediately but inspite of the sanction order and all requirements having been complied with as demanded by the opposite party, the electric connection was not released to the complainant. As a result thereof, the unit of the complainant could not become operational and that he could not earn anything and repay the loan. THE complainant moved from pillar to post but of no use. According to the complainant, he met Mr. H.S. Bassi, the Executive Engineer, opposite party No. 2 and requested him to release the connection and he was told by the opposite party No. 2 that until or unless a transformer was made available by the Superintending Engineer (Operations), the electricity could not be supplied to the complainant''s unit. THE Superintending Engineer (Operations), H.P. State Electricity Board, Solan was approached by the complainant for making available Transformer and according to the complainant, the Superintending Engineer (Operations) got a Transformer repaired and despatched to the opposite party No. 2 alongwith a forwarding letter intimating that the Transformer was for complainant''s unit. Inspite of the directions of the Superintending Engineer, on one pretext or the other, the Executive Engineer, opposite party No. 2 did not release the electricity and even violated the instructions of his superior - the Superintending Engineer. Ultimately 59.50 KW load was released to the complainant by the opposite party on 21.7.1992 which is evident from the order releasing the electricity issued on 4.8.1992 (Annexure A-19 refers to). After the release of electricity, the unit of the complainant became operational on 10.8.1992. According to the complainant, due to apathetic and casual approach of the opposite party No. 2, who acted in an unbecoming and unjustified manner in not releasing the connection immediately after the sanction order or at any rate after depositing the requisite amount and complying with all the requirements in 1990 itself, his unit could not become operational from 1990 to August, 1992. According to the complainant, he had to pay interest on the loan and spend for maintenance, watch and ward of machinery and salaries of staff etc. and also he has suffered the loss of earnings and as such he has been constrained to file the complaint. The opposite party has controverted the allegations made by the complainant. According to the opposite party, the complainant was not able to instal the machinery within time. Further, as per terms of the agreement, sanction letter as well as the affidavit filed by the complainant through its Proprietor, the complainant was to build up the load required to sanctioned load limit of 6 months from 6th October, 1990. However, the complainant did not build up the load to the extent of required sanctioned load. Under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act and Rules framed thereunder it is necessary that before the load is released to the consumer, the consumer has to file a test report duly verified by a certified electrical contractor to the effect that the contractor has inspected and checked the wiring and the same is fit for bearing the load required by the consumer. The complainant is bound not only by the terms and conditions of the sanction order but also under the provisions of law and he was required to give the test report before the release of the connection to him. In fact, the complainant earlier gave his test report (Annexure R-l) dated 8-10-1990 and this test report was for electrical installation of wiring of only 15 KW and, therefore, load of more than 15 KW could not be given to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant did not file any fresh test report regarding the increase demand in the connected load. Without such a report, the extra load could not be granted. Under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, Rules and the conditions of supply applicable to the consumers of H.P. State Electricity Board, the requirement of test report has been made mandatory with a view to safeguard the interests of the consumer and the public at large. In case the wiring is defective or sub-standard or not of the capacity to bear the load, it would be a great hazard if the high capacity is supplied and could lead to electrocution, fire and cause accidents leading to loss of life and property. In the absence of furnishing test report for 60 KW load, the opposite party was within its right to cancel the sanction given to the complainant but taking a sympathetic view, they still elected not to do it. According to the opposite party, in fact the complainant took a very long period to build up his load capacity to 60 KW and submitted the electrical contractor''s test report for extended load of 60 KW on 9.7.1992 and immediately thereafter the concerned officials of the opposite party did their cross-checking and full load was released on 21.7.1992.

The stand highlighted by the opposite party for not releasing the connection till 21.7.1992 is that the complainant did not comply with the requirement of furnishing contractor''s test report for extended load of 60 KW which was submitted on 9.7.1992 and immediately thereafter the full load was released on 21.7.1992 and according to them, therefore, there is no delay in the release of the connection. The opposite party have repudiated the allegations of the complainant that the Transformer was supplied by the Superintending Engineer (Operations), H.P.S.E.B., Solan, specifically for the purpose of giving supply to the complainant and have explained that the copy of letter of Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, HPSEB, Solan dated 13.12.1990 (Annexure R-4) only reveals that the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, HPSEB, Solan had only desired that in case the Transformer was not urgently required, then the case of the firm i.e. the complainant, be considered. Reply was sent by the Executive Engineer, opposite party No. 2 to the Superintending Engineer on 4.1.1991 vide letter (Annexure R-5) wherein he had clearly stated that the Transformer has been used to replace a damaged Transformer at Subkher which was meant for supply of electricity to the public at large. In the letter of the Superintending Engineer dated 13.12.1990, it was made clear that the first priority is to be given to replace the damaged Transformer at Subkher to ensure power supply to the existing consumers of Paonta town. According to the opposite party No. 2, he has not in any way violated any instructions given by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Solan and that it has been reiterated time and again in the reply that the electricity could not be released due to the noncompliance of the requirement of furnishing the requisite test report by the complainant. According to the opposite party No. 2, he is not in any way biased or has acted in any manner unbecoming of a Government servant but has acted according to the Indian Electricity Act, Rules and instructions of the H.P. State Electricity Board. Again, the opposite party have tried to substantiate that there was not much difference of consumption of electricity by the complainant in his unit during the period when he was sanctioned 15 KW load and the period when the load was increased from 15 KW to 60 KW. Therefore, the whole story of the complainant that he has suffered losses due to the fact that he was not supplied 60 KW of electricity is wrong and emphatically denied.

MISS Jyotsna Rewal, learned Counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that inspite of the sanction order passed by the Executive Engineer, opposite party No. 2 on 22.6.1988 for 60 KW connected load, Annexure A-5 and depositing the estimated cost of electric connection which includes the cost of Transformer and complying with all the requirements under the law, the electric connection of 60 KW was not released to the complainant till 21.7.1992 although it should have been released in 1990 itself with the result the unit of the complainant could not become functional and consequently he has suffered huge losses for which he is required to be compensated by the opposite party. Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the opposite party, however, has submitted that the complainant did not file the test report duly certified by the electrical contractor to the effect that the said contractor has inspected and checked the wiring and the same is fit for bearing the load of 60 KW required by the complainant. He has submitted the electrical contractor''s test report of connected load on 9.7.1992 and immediately thereafter full load of 60 KW was released on 21.7.1992. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action of the opposite party in not releasing the full load of 60 KW is arbitrary or unreasonable in any way and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party for which the complainant is required to be compensated.

IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it will be relevant at the very outset to refer to the sanction order by which 60 KW connected load was sanctioned. Such sanction was accorded by the opposite party subject to certain conditions and one of the conditions, condition No. 5 thereof provides that the consumer shall ensure that his electrical installations strictly conform to various provisions of INdian Electricity Rules, 1956 and INdian Electricity Supply Act. Further, the supply of electricity to the consumer shall be governed by the conditions of supply and various other rules and regulations. In this context we may notice that the Central Electricity Board has framed the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (IX of 1910) and Rule 45(1) thereof provides that no electrical installation work including additions, alterations, repairs and adjustments to existing installations, except such replacement of lamps, fans, fuses, switches, low voltage domestic appliances and fittings as in no way alters its capacity or character, shall be carried out upon the premises of or on behalf of any consumer, supplier, owner or occupier, for the purpose of supply to such consumer, owner or occupier except by an electrical contractor licensed in this behalf by the State Government and under the direct supervision of a person holding a certificate of competency and by a person holding a permit issued or recognised by the State Government. Rule 45(1) contemplates the premises of or on behalf of any owner or consumer and mandates that electric installations in such premises must be carried by a licensed electrical contractor. If the rule is disobeyed no electric installation work shall be connected with the works of any supplier. The rule provides for the appointment of licensed contractor who has to give a certificate to the effect that the contractor has inspected and checked up the wiring and the same is fit for bearing the load required by the consumer.

WE may also refer to Annexure-VI - Model Form of Draft Conditions of Supply - prepared under Rule 27 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, particularly para-8 thereof, which may be reproduced below: "For the protection of the consumer and the public generally, it is necessary that the wiring on the consumer premises should conform to the I.E. Rules and the Rules of the Fire Insurance Company in terms of which the building is insured and be carried out by a licensed electrical contractor. The material used for wiring shall comply with the standards laid down in that behalf by the Indian Standards Institution or equivalent. As soon as the consumer''s installations are completed, in all respects and tested by the consumer''s contractor, the consumer should submit to the licensee the wiring contractor''s completion and test report. A form for this purpose shall be supplied by the licensee. It is important that the conditions named therein are fully complied with and otherwise there will be a delay in obtaining the supply."

THE cumulative reading of Rule 45(1) and para-8 of Annexure-VI aforementioned leaves no manner of doubt that for the protection of the consumer and public generally, it is necessary that the wiring on the consumer''s premises would conform to the Indian Electricity Rules and regulations etc. and that the consumer''s installation should be completed in all respects and tested by the consumer''s contractor and thereafter the consumer has to submit to the licensee the wiring contractor''s completion and test report, the form of which shall be supplied by the licensee. It has been emphasized that the conditions provided must be fully complied with otherwise there would be delay in obtaining the supply. THE requirement of test report by the licensed contractor has been made mandatory under Rule 45 (1) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, and para8 of Annexure-VI - Model Form of Draft Conditions of supply. In fact, the violation of Rule 45 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 has been made punishable under Rule 139 of the said Rules. In view of these provisions of law, we find that there is good deal of force in such submissions of the learned Counsel for the opposite party. The complainant was under obligation to comply with the requirement of furnishing a test report from the qualified contractor under the Electricity Rules and sanction order, as discussed above. We may also notice that the complainant has filed an affidavit (Annexure R-2) whereby he has given an undertaking that he will build up the load to the extent of load suctioned within a period of six months from the date of connection failing which or in the event of any part of the load being disconnected latter. Admittedly, no connected load has been built up in terms of this affidavit and that no test report from a qualified contractor was obtained and submitted to the opposite party until 1992. It is not disputed that initially the complainant gave a test report for electrical installation of wiring of only 15 KW. Thereafter no test report was given for extended load of 60 KW. In fact, the complainant took very long period to build up the capacity of 60 KW and submitted the test report on 9.7.1992 (Annexure R-3) and immediately thereafter the concerned officials of the respondent Board did their cross-checking and the full load was released on 21.7.1992 i.e. after 12 days. Therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been any delay on the part of the opposite party for providing electric connection to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service.

The contention of Miss Jyotsna Rewal, the learned Counsel for the complainant, in this context, was that the test report of electrical contractor for extended load of 60 KW was to be given by the complainant only after the release of the connection and not earlier and it is provided in condition No. 12 of the sanction order dated 22.6.1988 that in case the load sanctioned is not utilized adequately within six months by the consumer, the opposite party reserves the right to divert the sanctioned load to any other prospective consumer without any obligations to the consumer.

SUCH a contention has been made merely to be rejected. Condition No. 12 deals with a different situation that in case the sanctioned load is not utilized adequately within 6 months, the Board has the right to release the sanctioned load to any consumer, the utilization of the sanctioned load obviously can be after the connection is released. We may now notice the main contention of Miss Jyotsna Rewal, the learned Counsel for the complainant that test report could only be filed after the release of the Transformer and that it was the duty of the opposite party to supply Transformer to the complainant''s unit after the complainant has complied with all the requirements of depositing the cost of electric connection which includes that cost of Transformer, with the opposite party. The Transformer was deliberately not installed which was installed in the year 1992 by the opposite party No. 2 who acted in an unbecoming and unjustified manner and mala fide. According to the complainant, the biased and mala fide attitude of the opposite party No. 2 is apparent from the fact that inspire of the directions of the Superintending Engineer in his letter dated 13.12.1990 for installation of Transformer at the complainant''s premises, the same was not installed in his premises by the opposite party No. 2. This contention is equally without force. At the very outset, we may refer to the stand of the opposite party that electric connection for extended load of 60 KW could not be released till 21.7.1992 because of the non-furnishing of the test report for load of 60 KW by the complainant. It has not been shown how the non-installation of Transformer can dispense with the furnishing of test report. In spite of that, we have examined this submission m different context whether the opposite party No. 2 has acted mala fide and in biased manner unbecoming of a public servant by not installing the Transformer although it was made available to him by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Solan and further whether he has taken the furnishing of test report as a pretext to defend his action of not releasing the electric connection immediately after the sanction order. As has been discussed above, the compliance of requirement of test report is mandatory and that the electric connection of extended load could not have been given to the premises of the complainant unless the test report was furnished by the complainant to the opposite party No. 2. The position about installation of Transformer as contended by the complainant has been explained by the opposite party No. 2 in his affidavit. No doubt the Superintending Engineer wrote to the opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 13.12.1990 (Annexure R-4) but by this letter, the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Solan had only desired that in case the Transformer was not required for replacement of damaged Transformer, then the case of the complainant''s firm be considered on priority. However, opposite party No. 2 in reply thereto, wrote to the Superintending Engineer (Operations), Solan vide letter dated 4.1.1991 (Annexure R-5) that the Transformer had been used to replace the damaged Transformer at Subkhera. This was meant for supply to the public at large. It has been nowhere stated by the Superintending Engineer in his letter dated 13.12.1990 that the repaired Transformer was meant exclusively for the complainant and his firm. It was clearly stipulated in that letter that in case the same was not urgently required for replacement of damaged Transformer, priority for augmentation of the Transformer to the complainant''s firm be considered. In the public interest, the Executive Engineer, opposite party No. 2 has installed the same at Subkhera. Therefore, in such a situation, the contention of the complainant that there has been violation of the directions of the Superintending Engineer by the opposite party No. 2 or that he has acted mala fide, unbecoming of public servant and that the furnishing of test report has been taken as a pretext by him for not releasing the connection, has to be rejected.

NO other points were urged. There is no force in the complaint and the complaint is accordingly dismissed. Complaint dismissed.