C.CHANNAIAH vs SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

IN this complaint, under Section 12 r/w Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 9,30,000/- from the opposite party Karnataka Electricity Board.

IT is the case of the complainant that he had set up a rice mill on obtaining a loan of Rs. 5.77 lakhs from the Karnataka State Finance Corporation. The opposite party, though sanctioned the power in favour of the complainant''s rice mill on 7.5.90, but it serviced the installation only on 13.5.91 and so he was made to keep the mill idle for a period of one year. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation for the loss that is sustained in keeping the mill idle for a period of one year. The complainant, further averred that, the opposite party sanctioned the power to the complainant with a restriction to work only between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. The complainant averred that this was an arbitrary and discriminatory order made by the opposite party-KEB and in consequence of which the complainant had suffered a loss. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation from the opposite party in a sum of Rs. 9,30,000/-.

The opposite party filed its version and averred that there was no delay on their part in servicing and installation. The power was sanctioned on 7.5.90 and the complainant submitted CR and WD on 12.10.90. The work order was issued on 15.10.90 after the completion of the work in all respects and obtaining the approval from the Deputy Electrical Inspector, Mandya, the installation was serviced on 8.5.91 and so the opposite party averred that there was no delay on their part in servicing the installation as it was serviced as soon as the work was completed.

THE opposite party averred further that having regard to the voltage regulation in the area the power to the complainant''s mill was sanctioned to operate the mill only between the period of 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. THEre was no discrimination nor it was an arbitrary action on the part of the opposite party K.E.B. THE opposite party on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed. During enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit and got Exs. C-l to C-10 marked in evidence. The opposite party filed the affidavit of its Law Officer.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings of the parties and material placed on record. Ex. C-2 is the letter sanctioning the power to the mill of the complainant, dated 7.5.90. It shows that the complainant was directed to produce certain licences from the village Panchayat and the Director of Food and Civil Supplies. He was also directed to produce N.O.C. from the Pollution Control Board. In the said letter itself, it has been specified that the installation should work only between 10.00 p.m. to 6 a.m. The complainant has not produced any material on record to show as to when he produced Panchayat licence, licence from the Director of Food and Civil Supplies and NOC from the Pollution Control Board. The opposite party has averred that as soon as the complainant submitted CR and WD in the month of October, 1990, work order was issued and after the completion of the work in all respects by 2.4.91, the installation was serviced on 8.5.91. Having regard to these facts, we do not find any delay or negligence on the part of the Opp. Party - K.E.B., in servicing the installation of the complainant.

THE another grievance of the complainant is that the power was sanctioned with a restriction to work only between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. THE opposite party has averred, having regard to the power regulation in the area that restriction of supply of power between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. was put on the working of the installation of the complainant. THE complainant had agreed for such a restriction by giving undertaking to the opposite party and having done so, the complainant has no right to say that such a restriction was imposed arbitrarily.

HAVING regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the complaint, we find that the restriction imposed was for good and sufficient reasons by the opposite party - KEB, so there is no merit in the grievance of the complainant that the restriction in the power supply imposed by the opposite party - KEB was arbitrary and discriminatory. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs of this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.