BALRAJ SINGH SANDHU vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

VIDE this order two Appeal Nos. 321 and 420 of 1998 are being disposed of. Main judgment is prepared in Appeal No. 321 of 1998. The challenge in both the cross-appeals is to the order of the District Forum, Amritsar dated January 23, 1998. A direction was given to the Electricity Board to restore the electric connection of the complainant within 15 days and to pay costs of Rs. 500/-. The demand of Electricity Board for recovery of Rs. 11,190/- was held to be illegal. In Appeal No. 321 of 1998 filed by the complainant, compensation is being asked for on account of deficient rendering of service on the part of the Electricity Board in the matter of illegal disconnection of electricity to his residential premises. In the other appeal filed by the Electricity Board, prayer is for setting aside the order of the District Forum. In this appeal, application for condoning delay in filing the appeal was filed which is also for disposal.

TAKING up the application for condoning delay in filing Appeal No. 420 of 1998, it may be observed that certified copy of the impugned order of the District Forum, as per allegations mentioned in the application, was received by the Board on March 5,1998 and after observing necessary formalities for filing the appeal, the file was sent to the Senior Standing Counsel for taking further action on April 24,1998. Hence, there was stated to be delay of 31 days in filing the appeal. Along with the application, no affidavit of any person conversant with the facts as alleged in the application was filed. Although no reply to the application has been filed by the respondent, the application is otherwise opposed. Mr. Updip Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant, Balraj Singh Sandhu, has argued that on the allegations which stand unproved, delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. He has further argued that appeal in fact was filed on May 15,1998 and there is no explanation as to why the appeal could not be filed during the period April 28,1998 to May 15,1998. It is on April 28, 1998 that the appeal purports to have been prepared by the Counsel for the appellant. We find merit in these contentions. A vague allegation in the application, that the file was sent to the Executive Engineer (Co-ordination) and finally to the Counsel after taking decision for filing appeal, cannot be accepted in the absence of any affidavit produced. Furthermore, the appeal was prepared on April 28,1998 and was actually filed on May 15,1998. There is no explanation for this delay in filing the appeal. Since the appellant has failed to prove any cogent reason in not filing the appeal within the stipulated period, the application for condoning delay in filing the appeal is dismissed with the result the Appeal No. 420 of 1998 filed by P.S.E.B. is also dismissed as barred by time. Taking up the appeal of the complainant No. 321 of 1998, we find that the District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that disconnection of the electricity was illegal and so was the demand of Rs. 11,190/-. As per stand of the Electricity Board, the premises were inspected on September 26, 1997 and glass of the electric meter was found to be broken. A memo was prepared and subsequently the connection was disconnected and the demand was raised. All this is against the instructions of the Electricity Board as on the alleged memo prepared by the officials of the Electricity Board, signatures of the consumer or his representative were not obtained. According to the complainant, he was not associated or given any notice before disconnection. This Commission has already held that in order to prove a case of theft, it was necessary for the Electricity Board to produce material. In the present case, no such material has been produced. Merely because glass of the meter was found to be cracked is not considered enough to hold that electricity was being stolen by the consumer. The meter was not got tested from the Laboratory. Rather, the instruction was to follow the removal of the meter. A report should have been prepared and got signed from the consumer and in his absence from any other responsible person and likewise the meter was required to be tested after associating the consumer. Nothing of the sort was done in the present case and the officials of the Electricity Board arbitrarily acted in making out a false case of theft against the complainant and affecting the disconnection.

The question of compensation is required to be determined under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act on account of negligent act of the officials of the Electricity Board. The complainant was deprived of the electricity for a period commencing from November, 1997 to the date of order of the District Forum. Orally it is stated that it was on May 8, 1998 that the connection was restored. This would show that from November, 1997 to May, 1998 the complainant was deprived of the electricity at his residential premises. In the present era, electricity is not a luxury item. It is one of the items of the essential utility and the discomfort suffered by the complainant can well be imagined during all this period. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- is considered just compensation to be allowed to the complainant in the facts of the present case. The appeal filed by the complainant is allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified. The Electricity Board would pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with costs as awarded by the District Forum as well as of this appeal total Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant. Appeals disposed of accordingly. _______________