BISAHU RAM KAUSHIK vs JUNIOR ENGINEER, CHHATTISGARH ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 2.1.2004 in Complaint No. 82/2003 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) directing the respondent Electricity Board to refund the amount of Rs. 6,890/- deposited by the appellant herein for obtaining electric line by shorter route.

UNDISPUTED facts are that the complainant/appellant had obtained electric connection from the respondent Electric Board for running his 5 HP pump installed in his agricultural field for irrigation purpose. The complainant experienced and suffered on account of low voltage in the said connection. He was informed that since his connection came from longer route, fluctuation and low voltage result. He, therefore, sought electric connection to his motor pump by shorter route and applied therefor on 29.1.2001, with the respondent Electricity Board. The respondent issued a demand note on 23.6.2001 for Rs. 6,890/- towards expenses in giving him line by shorter route, as prayed by the complainant. The complainant complied with the demand note, on the same date, and deposited the said amount. It is also not in dispute that though the connection by shorter route was not given to the complainant/appellant, a new transformer was fixed near his field on 17.9.2002 by the respondent which rectified and redressed his grievance of low voltage. Complainant filed a complaint alleging delay in redressal of his grievance of low voltage by the respondent. It was alleged by him that he had to suffer loss of crop due to delay of above by the respondent. He claimed that the amount of Rs. 6,890/- deposited by him be refunded to him and compensation be awarded to him for the loss of crop. Respondent Electricity Board resisted the complaint. According to them the complainant himself was responsible for the delay in depositing the amount demanded by them and denied their liability to pay any compensation.

The District Forum directed that the amount deposited by the respondent be refunded to him by the appellant. However, no compensation was awarded to him, as prayed.

APPELLANT''s learned Counsel submitted that after the complainant/appellant submitted his applications on 29.1.2001 for rectification of his grievance of low voltage, the same was not attended to till 17.9.2002, when the new transformer was fixed by the Electricity Board. It was started that he had to suffer loss of his crop and compensation ought to have been awarded by the District Forum, besides the direction given by it for refund of the amount deposited by him. Learned Counsel for the respondent Electricity Board however, submitted that respondents are not guilty of deficiency in service. They had taken adequate steps for the rectification of the grievance and had directed the fixture of new transformer which ultimately was carried out on 17.9.2002. It was submitted that proceedings towards installation of transformer, resulted in some delay, which however cannot be termed as deficiency in service.

THE question that arises for consideration is : as to whether the com-plainant/appellant is entitled to compensation on account of delay caused by the respondent Electricity Board? As noticed above, the complainant suffered from low voltage in his connection. Hence, he filed an application for rectification thereof on 29.1.2001. Undisputably the demand note was issued23.6.2001, (copy of which has been filed in the record) by the respondent and the said amount was without delay deposited by the complainant/appellant on the same day i.e., on 23.6.2001. There is no material on record to show as to what steps thereafter were taken by the respondent Electricity Board for giving connection from shorter route, as was prayed by the appellant. However, undisputably now the new transformer has been installed on 17.9.2002, near the field of the complainant/appellant, which redressed his grievance of low voltage in his motor pump connection. Obviously the aforesaid developments clearly indicate that though the complainant prayed that the line from shorter route be given to him in order to rectify his grievance of low voltage, the respondent Electricity Board took a long time of about 5 months in issuing the demand note. Further, though the complainant/appellant deposited the amount on the same day as demanded by the respondent, his grievance remained unattended till 17.9.2002, when the new transformer was installed by the respondent.

IT was stated that the complainant has now no grievance regarding low voltage. However, delay from January, 2001 to September, 2002 by the respondent is inordinate. Even after depositing the amount about 15 months elapsed before new transformer was installed. The complainant must have suffered loss of his crop to certain extent because of low voltage which must have resulted in low irrigation potential of motor pump installed in his field. However, the complainant/appellant has not placed any material to show as to how much land was irrigated by the said pump and the extent of loss suffered by him due to low irrigation. In the circumstances, we consider it just and proper to award damages to the complainant amounting to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) besides refund of the amount deposited by him with the respondent as already ordered by the District Forum.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order stands modified as below: "The respondent Electricity Board shall refund the amount of Rs. 6,890/- deposited by the complainant/appellant with the respondent. The respondent shall also pay to the complainant/appellant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) as compensation. Interest on the said amount at the rate of 10 % p.a. shall also be payable from the date of complaint. The respondent shall also pay to the complainant/appellant the cost of this appeal which is quantified as Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. Appeal allowed.