Ajay Kumar Agarwal vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, U.P. , RAJYA VIDUT PARISHAD And OTHERS

THIS case arises out of a complaint filed by S.K. Agarwal, on the allegations that he wanted to set up a plant for manufacturing of Chura from Dhan and for that purpose he obtained land and loan was sanctioned to him by U.P.F.C. and Distt. Industries Centre, Shahjahnpur. He also applied for a 40 H.P. Electric Connection after depositing a sum of Rs. 25/- on 14.9.88. The U.P.F.C, Nareilly advanced a sum of Rs. 6,43,100/- and District Industries Centre, Shahjahnpur for setting up the factory ad- vanced Rs. 60,000/- and he established his factory by 16.4.89. The complainant submitted the plan and had expected that the opposite party would provide to him the Electric Connection in 7 months i.e., by April 89. It was expected that during seven months all formalities for Electric Connection would be complied with and that he would start on the project. In spite of best efforts the complainant could not get Electric Connection within expected time. He, however, actually got Electric Connection after 31 months i.e. in April 91. On account of delay in getting the Electric Connection the complainant on 26th April 89, purchased the generator set and applied for permission to use the generator from the electricity safety Department. The complainant ultimately got the said permission after inspection on 5.10.89. It is alleged that the Electricity Board did not supply Electric Connection and in this way the Board was guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant. As a consequence of setting up of the generator and on account of delay in giving Electric Connection, the complainant has alleged that he has incurred the in loss and that he could not also obtain a subsidy for the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant was entitled to get subsidy from P.F.C. by 31.3.90 but could not get it as stated in paragraph 7 of the complaint. The complainant suffered loss in running the unit by generator which is more expensive in running. In paragraph 14 of the complaint it has been stated that on account of delay in the supply of Electric Connection which was actually given after 31 months the complainant has suffered loss in the manner indicated in the complaint.

THE complaint was opposed by the opposite parties. THE main ground on which complaint was opposed by the Electricity Board is that when the complainant applied for Electric Connection the transformer was not in full load capacity. In the rejoinder the complainant has stated that the allegation of the opposite party that the transformer was not in order is not correct. On the above pleadings the question that arises for our consideration is whether the delay in extending Electric Connection to the complainant after a period of 31 months is liable to be compensated and as to whether the service required to be rendered was defective or not.

In our opinion the contention of the Electricity Board that the transformer at the time of Electric Connection was not in full load capacity appears to be unreliable. If that was the only reason the opposite party should have informed the complainant that the load cannot be sanctioned. On account of over loading the conduct of the Electric Board in delaying in giving Electric Connection load is not condonable on any reasonable basis. The complaint filed by the complainant indicates that the complainant did his best to procure electric connection but the officials of the Board were negligent in not giving the electric connection within a reasonable period. We have arrived at this finding after examining the record of the case.

THE next question that arises is as to what is the amount of damages to which the complainant is entitled from the opposite party. Although the complainant has filed a number of documents. He has failed to prove the extent of compensation to which he is entitled. Nevertheless it is obvious that the opposite parties were negligent in delaying in giving Electric Connection. If the Electricity Board knew that the transformer could not bear the load it could have informed the complainant earlier. The complainant applied for Electric Connection on 14th September, 88. We observe that the S.G. concerned had sanctioned after the decision of Regional Power Distribution Committee the load of 40 H.P. vide their Office Memorandum dated 25.9.90. As such any question of making available the electric energy could arise only after this date. In our opinion two months time is enough to make necessary arrangements and to make the electric energy available to the complainant i.e., say by 30.11.90. There is no justification for delaying the matter after 30.11.90 up to 11th April 91 i.e., for a period of about 4 months. Since the complainant did not lead any specific evidence to determine the extent of damages, we would fix a lumpsum of Rs. 5000/- by way of damages for delay on the part of the opposite party in giving Electric Connection.

WE accordingly hold that the Electric Board is liable to pay the said amount Rs. 5000/- to the complaint by 31.7.93 failing which the amount will also carry interest amount @ 18% per annum till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. The complaint is decided in the manner indicated above. Complaint decided as indicated.