BEST ELECTRODES INDUSTRY vs M.P.AUDHOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM

THIS complaint was filed on 3.1.1991 seeking damages amounting to Rs. 30.00 lakhs from the opposite parties numbering three. As to how this figure of Rs. 30.00 lakhs is arrived at, complainants say, (i) Rs. 5.00 lakhs in the shape of interest; It is not shown in the complaint as to which of the three opposite parties is liable or if the claim is made jointly or severally.

SHORN of necessary details and surplusage, complainants say that lured by the advertisement issued by the first opposite party, it applied for an industrial plot on 18.2.1985 in industrial estate developed by the first opposite party. The place where this industrial area situated is stated to be the biggest coal seam in the world. Complainant are engaged in the manufacturing of welding electrodes of various sizes and qualities which are required by the Central Coal Field Ltd. who have opened up many mines in the area. On receiving the application first opposite party issued to the complainants letter of intent. Thereafter complainants received allotment letter containing various conditions. Some of the conditions of allotment letter were that industry will be set up within a period of 3 to 6 months from the date of allotment; it will start production within one year from the date of allotment. However, this condition of period of 3 to 6 months was deleted subsequently by execution of lease deed. Complainants say that they could not start their industry because there were no supply of electricity and without that no production was possible. They wrote letters dated 16.7.1986" and 6.8.1986 demanding supply of electricity. In fact, letters were written on their behalf by the M.P. Audhyegik Kendra; Director of Industries, Madhya Pradesh; and M.P. Financial Corporation. On 16.7.1986 first opposite party had written to the complainant to approach the M.P. Electricity Board, Sidhi (M.P.), opposite party No. 2 for his requirement of electricity. On 7.2.1987 M.P. Electricity Board intimated to the complainant to deposit Rs. 52,000/- as pre- condition for electrification in the area of 11 KV line. Complainants say they did not deposit this amount as on 18.3.1987 they received another letter from M.P. Electricity Board mentioning that the estimate of electrification in the industrial area was Rs. 2.54 lakhs and that that amount was to be deposited by the first opposite party. Complainants were in the meanwhile, told to complete all the necessary formalities. It was on 30.10.1987 that M.P. Electricity Board informed the complainant that power was available for their unit. Complainants say till this date they were denied electricity which resulted in their suffering of loss and their claim for damages. They say they had employed labour and that was costing him Rs. 400/- every day. First opposite party in its reply said that the complaint is barred by limitation. It had been filed more than 3 years after the cause of action. On this aspect, when we examine the rejoinder filed by the complainant it could not meet the case of the first opposite party that the complaint was barred by limitation. It referred to the objects of the first opposite party as to how it was established, what services it was to render. It says on 30.10.1987 electricity had been extended only to the industrial area belt but had not been- extended to the unit of the complainant and it was extended only 5.5.1988 on which date according to them cause of action had arisen and period of limitation would start. We are of the view that complainants are wrong in their calculation. Cause of action arose when electricity was due to be provided to the complainants and was denied to them and the cause of action does not arise from the date they got the electricity. In fact on that date cause of action which has arisen earlier and assuming to have continued got dissolved. If we read the complaint, cause of action arose in 1986. In their letter dated 6.8.1986 to the first opposite party, complainants say that it was paying Rs. 500/- per day as interest to the M.P. Financial Corporation opposite party No. 3 and that their labour was sitting idle. This complaint has, therefore, been filed more than 3 years after the cause of action has arisen, it is barred by limitation.

In support of its case, complainants have filed evidence by means of affidavit. There are no particulars of the loss alleged to be suffered by the complainants and there are no supporting documents. Mere filing an affidavit to say that they suffered a certain loss does not advance the case of the complainants. A copy of balance sheet is also no evidence and no notice can be taken thereof. Complainants have thus led no evidence in support of its case. This complaint, therefore, fails and it is dismissed on the ground of limitation and on merit. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed. _______________