BALDEV SINGH vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

VIDE this order, two cross appeals are being disposed of. Appeal No. 944/ 1997has been filed by Baldev Singh, the complainant whereas Appeal No. 1144 / 97 has been filed by Punjab State Electricity Board. The complainant claims compensation of Rs. 30,000/- as awarded by Single Member of the District Forum whereas by the Majority decision, the District Forum allowed compensation of Rs. 500/- only. In the appeal filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board, the request is for setting aside the order of the District Forum as the complainant was not entitled to any compensation. It may be observed that District Forum disposed of the complaint on August 19,1997.

BALDEV Singh, complainant was having Tubewell Electric Connection for irrigating his fields, No. C-1342. He was paying electricity charges at the flat rate of Rs. 256/- per month. He was regularly paying the bills. In July, 1996, spare parts of the Transformer feeding his connection were stolen. Thus, electricity supply was disrupted. The report of theft with the police was duly recorded by the concerned Line Superintendent of the area. The Electricity Board failed to reinstal the new Transformer upto January 10, 1997. Since, the electricity was not being supplied, the complainant suffered losses and damages to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. He requested the employees of the Electricity Board not to claim electricity bill during the period the electricity remained disrupted on that account. Thus he prayed for such a direction and claimed compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. The Electricity Board submitted its version, inter alia taking up preliminary objections that the complainant was defaulter as he had not paid bill of supply of electricity since August, 1996, Thus, electricity was disconnected vide order dated November 29, 1996, which was effected on December 1, 1996. Thus the complainant was not entitled to file the complaint. He was no more a consumer. The complainant did not apply for restoration of the connection. The complainant was stated to be a habitual defaulter. Even prior to August, 1996, he had made irregular payments. It Was admitted that theft had taken place on the night of October, 25 and 26, 1996 and F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Sadar Faridkot on October 26, 1996. Factually the F.I.R. was registered on December 27,1996 by the police after reminder was issued on December 14,1996. It was thereafter that the matter was taken up for reinstalling the Transformer, which was actually installed on January 13,1997. Till registration of the F.I.R., the matter of reinstallation of the Transformer could not be taken up. In this manner, delay was explained. It was specifically pleaded that the complainant had not paid electricity charges for August, 1996 and there was no question of negligence on the part of the Electricity Board as the electricity had been ordered to be disconnected. Replication was filed by the complainant that the alleged disconnection was only a paper transaction and was counter blast. In fact, he was entitled to the compensation as prayed. It was admitted that the complainant did not pay the bill (August bill) due to non supply of electricity to him. The complainant produced his affidavit as well as affidavit of Jagir Singh, Sarpanch, Chhinder Singh and Annexure Ci, requisition for the Transformer. On the other hand, the opposite party produced affidavit of Gurmantar Singh, Junior Engineer, Annexure R1 and documents Annexures ''A'' and ''B''. On the evidence aforesaid, majority Members of the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was non supply of electricity from October 26, 19Q6 to January, 13, 1997, which caused inconvenience to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 500/- was allowed as damages. It was further observed that the Electricity Board would be entitled to recover electricity charges from the complainant for the period August 1, 19% to October, 25,1996 i.e. prior to the date of theft and after January 13,1997 i.e. after installation of the new Transformer. Single Member of the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant suffered loss for want of supply of water during the period July, 1996 to January 13, 1997 and thus awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. It was further observed that the Electricity Board will not be entitled to claim electricity charges for the period July, 1996 to January 10, 1997.

At the outset, it may be stated that all the Members of the District Forum had come to the conclusion that on account of theft of spare parts of the Transformer, supply of electricity was disrupted and further on replacement of the Transformer, the supply was restored on January 13, 1997. During this period, the Electricity Board was not entitled to claim electricity charges as in fact electricity had not been supplied. The difference of opinion in this respect was only with respect to the date of commission of theft or in other words, disruption of the electricity supply. Since it was the case of the complainant himself that when spare parts of the Transformer were stolen, report was made to the police by official of the Electricity Board, which fact stands admitted in the written statement, there was no reason to come to a finding different that the theft took place on the night of October 25 and 26, 1996 as the report was lodged on October 27, 1996. Simple assertion of the complainant that in July, 1996, electricity was disrupted cannot be accepted. The finding of the District Forum in the majority decision that electricity was disrupted on account of theft of the spare parts of the Transformer on the night between 25th and 26th of 1996 is sound and based on material and we uphold the same.

THE next question for consideration is as to whether the plea of the Electricity Board as taken up in the written statement that on account of non payment of bill of August, 1996, the electricity was disconnected, can well be accepted or not. THE factum of non payment of bill of August, 1996 stands admitted by the complainant. THE only reason for non payment of the bill as asserted in the complaint as well as replication was otherwise disruption in the supply of electricity. At this stage, it may be observed that as per finding recorded above that the electricity was disrupted in October, 1996, the complainant was duty bound to pay charges for the electricity consumed in the month of August, 1996 or prior thereto inspite of the fact that subsequently there was disruption in the supply of electricity. THE same cannot be a valid reason for non payment of the bills for the electricity already consumed. Since the complainant has not taken up the plea of the payment of the bill aforesaid, there was no reason to disbelieve the stand taken up by the Electricity Board that on account of non payment of the bill aforesaid, the electricity connection was disconnected as per order referred to above. Of course, there would be non supply of electricity, if the Transformer was not in working order and likewise there would be non supply of electricity when the connection is disconnected. It may further be noticed that formal order of disconnection for non payment of electricity bill is required to be passed, which in the present case was done by the Competent Authority of the Electricity Board within a reasonable period. As per instructions issued by the Electricity Board No. 25/1997 whereby the period of 7 days for disconnection of electricity was increased to 30 days for temporary disconnection and another period of 30 days for permanent disconnection. THE present is not such a case where after lapse of sufficient time i.e. six months or more, abruptive orders of disconnection of electricity were passed on the ground of non payment of bill. Within a reasonable period, such orders were passed in the present case and notice for disconnection on account of non payment of the bill is already in the bill itself or in the Passbook supplied to the consumer. THE electricity connection can be restored as per rule of the Electricity Board on payment of the dues alongwith reconnection charges. THE complainant has not so far formally applied for reconnection, although it was specifically pleaded in the written statement that as per orders passed, electricity connection was disconnected. The question of grant of compensation has to be considered in the light of the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, which reads as under : "14(1)(d)-to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party."

IN view of the aforesaid provision, the first question for consideration is as to whether on account of any negligent act of the opposite party, the complainant had suffered loss and the second question is as to how much loss the complainant has suffered on account of such negligent act of the opposite party. As far as first part of the question is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be held that there was any negligent act on the part of the employees of the Electricity Board in the matter of disrupting of electricity supply as according to the case of both the parties, spare parts of the Transformer feeding the electricity connection of the complainant were stolen and as per finding recorded above, such theft occurred on the night intervening 25th and 26th of October, 1996. If theft had occurred of spare parts of the Transformer, it cannot be said that the employees of the Electricity Board were negligent in causing disruption in the supply of electricity for whatsoever reasons it may be, may amount to deficiency in rendering service. However, in order to grant compensation for the loss suffered, the burden is on the complainant to prove that there was negligent act of the opposite party resulting in causing loss to him. The Members of the District Forum did not advert to the provisions of Section 14(l)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as referred to above while granting compensation. We are of the view that in the present case, the complainant had failed to prove any negligent act on the part of the opposite party causing loss to the complainant to entitle him to compensation. IN view of the finding arrived above, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation on account of non supply of the electricity, which was on account of theft of spare parts of the Transformer or disconnection for non-payment of bill. It is not necessary to assess the actual loss suffered by the complainant. IN order to avoid remand of the case, this part of the question is also adjudicated. The majority view of the District Forum appears to be correct that it was harvesting season and the complainant would not have suffered any loss as the crops were ripe for harvesting and did not require irrigation. Even otherwise, the complainant has not led any cogent evidence as to how much loss he had suffered on account of non availability of irrigation facilities. The ipse dixit of the complainant that he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- and his claim to that amount could not be accepted as has been held by Single Member of the District Forum. In the circumstances stated above, if it had been held that the complainant was entitled to any compensation, only token compensation as awarded by the majority members of the District Forum of Rs. 500/- could at the best be granted. However, as discussed above, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation in view of the finding that the electricity connection was disconnected on account of non payment of bill of August, 1996, which is legal and valid. The directions of the District Forum that the Electricity Board was not entitled to claim electricity charges for the period October 26, 1996 to January 13, 1997 are justified as the Electricity Board was not to charge for the electricity, which was not supplied. For the reasons recorded above, Appeal No. 944/1997 filed by Baldev Singh is dismissed with no order as to costs and Appeal No. 1144/ 1997 filed by the Electricity Board is allowed. Order of the District Forum granting compensation to the complainant is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. It is left to the complainant to apply to the Electricity Board for restoration of the electric connection, which would be restored according to the instructions, on payment of the arrears of the electricity supplied upto October 25, 1996 alongwith reconnection charges. Ordered accordingly. _______________