ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Lal Chand

THIS appeal has been filed by the Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Electricity Board, Nagaur against the order of the District Forum, Nagaur dated 7.8.1992. Complainant respondent filed a complaint on 23.8.91 before the District Forum, Nagaur alleging that there was an electricity connection on the agricultural field of the complainant. THIS electricity connection was in the name of Roopa Ram, father of the complainant and the account number of the connection was 42/2/206 of 10 H.P. Rupa Ram died on 24.6.87 and the complainant was the successor of his father and was using this electricity connection to the well on the agriculture field. It was alleged that the complainant had sown the crops of Chilies, Onion and Richka on his agricultural land. However on 15.5.90 the transformer installed was burnt. Information in this regard was given by the complainant on 15.5.90 itself to the Competent Authority. When the transformer was not replaced by a new transformer, the complainant made request to the Junior Engineer in writing and on 10.6.90 to the Assistant Engineer. It was on 10.8.90 that an old transformer was handed over to the complainant and the same was brought by the complainant at his own expenses, but it was also found to be burnt and the complainant returned the transformer on 16.8.90 at his own expenses. On 21.9.90 representatives met the AEN and Asstt. Chief Engineer at Makrana and they assured the representatives that the transformer will be installed within 4 days. However the same was not installed for quite a long time and it was only on 24.11.90 when request was made to the Chairman of the RSEB that the transformer was installed. Due to this late replacement of the transformer the crops which had been sown by the complainant were damaged. The complainant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for damages to the crops on account of non-supply of the electricity due to non-replacement of the transformer.

THE complainant further alleged that he had been paying rent of the meter installed at the well @ Rs. 9/- per month. This meter was burnt in January, 1990 but the same was not replaced by the Opposite Party. Without rep lacing the meter, the Opposite Party charged meter rent as well. THE complainant prayed for refund of Rs. 100/- which was realised from him as meter rent. He also claimed Rs. 1,500/- for transportation charges of the transformer and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental distress and agony. He also claimed an amount of Rs. 1,000/- which is said to have been received as illegal gratification by the AEN, RSEB for replacing the transformer. Thus the complainant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 82,600/-. The Opposite Party-appellant filed a version before the District Forum. In its version the Opposite Party stated that in the application made on 5.11.90 by the complainant to the Superintending Engineer (Distribution), Makrana, he had mentioned that the transformer was burnt on 7.6.90. According to the record, three transformers were reported to have been burnt on 2.6.90, 28.6.90 and 30.6.90. One more transformer was burnt on 22.7.90. Thus in all four transformers have been burnt during the above period in village Liwana, Tehsil Nawa of District Nagaur. Out of them three transformers were replaced on 3.8.90 and 17.10.90 and the transformer in relation to the connection of the complainant was also replaced on 3.8.90. The complainant was to bear the expenses of taking the transformer to his village. It was stated that when the transformer was replaced in August, 90 the complainant could irrigate his crops and there was no question of his suffering damages on account of loss to the crop. It was denied that the complainant made any application to the AEN or S.E. for replacing a new transformer. It was also denied that any illegal gratification was realised from the complainant. As to the meter rent, it was stated that Rs. 12/- was charged as meter rent. The meter reader had reported in November, 89 that the meter was burnt and on 9.2.90 orders were passed for replacement of the meter. However since the complainant had not deposited the arrears due against him and the connection was disconnected, the replacement of the meter could be made after the restoration of the connection and on payment of the dues. The complainant was charged on average basis. As the meter remained installed upto June, 91, the meter rent was charged correctly.

The District Forum held that the transformer was burnt on 7.6.90 and the same was not replaced till August, 90 and thus the complainant could not get electricity during June and July, 90 on account of non-replacement of the transformer. As to the compensation for loss to the crop, the District Forum held that it was not established that the complainant suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 60,000/-. However it was established from the affidavits that there were crops of Chilies, Onion and Richka on the field. The District Forum, therefore, assessed the loss suffered by the complainant @ Rs. 400/- per Bigha and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,400/- for loss to the crop, Rs. 500/- for mental distress and agony and Rs. 200/- as costs for filing the complaint. The District Forum further held that it was wrong on the part of the Opposite Party to charge meter rent after February, 90 and directed the adjustment of the amount realised on account of rent of the meter in future bills. The electricity connection was directed to be restored. The District Forum also quashed the electricity bill of the month of March, 90 sent to the complainant on the basis of average when in that month the meter reading card ''No use'' of the electricity was mentioned. Liberty was however given to the Opposite Party to send a revised bill for the month of March, 90 in accordance with the bills which were sent to the complainant in February, 87, 88 and 90 and to recover the amount of the revised bills in three instalments. Aggrieved by this order, the Opposite Party has filed this appeal.

THE learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-appellant contended that the District Forum was wrong in awarding Rs. 4,400/- as compensation to the complainant for loss of the crop. It was urged that from middle of June, 90 to 10.8.90, it was rainy season and during this season no irrigation was required from the tube well. In such circumstances, there was no question of the complainant suffering any loss or damage to the crop on account of non-replacement of the transformer upto 10.8.90. It was also submitted that the District Forum was wrong in awarding Rs. 500/ - as compensation to the complainant for mental distress and agony and Rs. 200/- as costs. As to meter rent, it is said that so long that the meter was installed, the Opposite Party was entitled to charge rent of the meter. Lastly it was submitted that the electricity bill of the month of March, 90 was in accordance with the provision of Condition No. 19(d)(vii) of the General Conditions of Supply and the District Forum was wrong in directing the charging of electricity consumption for the month of March, 90 on the basis of the average of February, 87, 88 and 1989. We have given our due consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. It appears that on 5.11.90 the complainant had made an application in writing to the S.E. (Distribution), RSEB, Makrana wherein it was mentioned that the transformer had burnt in June, 90 and report in that respect was made. On 5.8.90 another transformer was given which did not work at all and the same was sent back to the Junior Engineer on 16.8.90. Request was made for replacement of the transformer. Upon this application the S.E. (Distribution) passed an order on 6.11.90 for change of the transformer. From the Material Exist Pass it appears that some transformers had been issued from the Stores from the AEN(O & M) on 3.8.90. It is thus borne out that the transformer installed in relation to the electricity connection of the complainant was burnt on 7.6.90 and the same was replaced on 5.8.90. Thus for two months the complainant could not get electricity to his well on account of non-replacement of the transformer. The fact that the S.E. (Distribution) had ordered upon the application of the complainant dated 5.11.90 for changing the transformer lends support to the contention of the complainant that the transformer which was replaced on 5.8.90 also did not work and, therefore, the complainant again made application for replacement of the transformer. There is also on record of the District Forum a letter written by the S.E. (O & M), Nagaur to the Executive Engineer (O & M), Nagaur Mertacity and Makrana wherein the Superintending Engineer noted that during those days about one to two months time was taken in the replacement of burnt transformers. This delay was mainly due to the fact that the burnt transformers in the circle were not deposited in the Store at Nagaur by various Subdivision Officers. This was said to be undesirable. It was also mentioned in this letter dated 30.8.91 that the existing agriculture consumers were daily roaming in Divisional Offices and Circle Office for getting replacement of burnt transformers. This letter of the S.E. also goes to show that the burnt transformers ''were not replaced speedily by the Competent Officers of the R.S.E.B. Naturally when a consumer does not get electricity for two months on account of non-replacement of the transformer and the replaced transformer is also defective and does not work, he is bound to suffer economic loss to the crop. The District Forum has awarded quite reasonable compensation to the complainant for the economic loss sustained by him. The compensation awarded is only Rs. 4,400/- which cannot be said to be excessive. Naturally the complainant suffered mental distress and agony as he had to make repeated applications for replacement of transformer. The award of Rs. 500/- in this regard and Rs. 200/- as costs of the complaint is reasonable.

AS to the meter rent, it is clear that the meter was burnt in January, 90 and was not replaced. No meter rent could be charged by the Opposite Party for burnt meter. Meter rent can only be charged with respect to a working meter. The District Forum was, therefore, right in holding that the meter rent was charged wrongly upto February, 90 and in directing to adjust the rent charged against future bills. With regard to the quashing of the electricity bill sent in March, 90, it may be mentioned that the complainant had not claimed any relief in this regard in the complaint filed by him and therefore the District Forum should not have granted a relief which was not claimed by the complainant himself. This part of the order of the District Forum deserves to be set aside. We, therefore, partly allow this appeal and only set aside that part of the order of the District Forum, Nagaur thereby it has quashed the bill of March, 1990 and had directed the Opposite Party-appellant to send a revised bill, if it so liked, of March, 90 on the basis of average of February, 1987, 1988 and 1989. The remaining order of the District Forum passed in the complaint is maintained. Parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.