CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

UPBHOKTA Sanrakshan Samiti, Beawar has filed this complaint against the Superintending Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Ajmer before the State Commission on 28.10.90 praying that the opposite party may be asked to waive minimum charges for the period 3.7.1989 to 11.5.1990. It was also requested that as Rajasthan State Electricity Board has harassed and caused financial loss, the following amounts may be ordered to be paid :- (1) ''From July, 89'' to May, 90'' minimum charges amounting to Rs. 50,680/-; and (2) financial loss as the factory had to be closed Rs. 5,00,000/- total Rs. 5,50,680/-.

THE factory is situated in Industrial Area, Beawar. An application was submitted for electric connection of 55 H.P. on 1.10.85. A sum of Rs. 2,410/- was demanded from the complainant as electric connection expenses. THE demand was made on 3.10.86 and the amount was deposited on 28.10.86. THE complainant got the fitting done. Fitting was complete and for that two forms were submitted in the office on 1.12.86. After the completion of all the formalities, electric connection was given on 12.1.87 to the complainant. THEre was delay of 15 months and thus the complainant was harassed. THE demand for illegal gratification was made and as the complaint could not meet the demand, he had to go to Ajmer several times and after satisfying the desire, the connection was given. On account of delay, the building, machinery etc. remained idle and the complainant had paid interest to Rajasthan Financial Corporation and he had to take money on interest. As his financial condition was week, the complainant could not deposit the amount of the bills and suffered mental agony. As the amounts of the bills were not paid in time, electric connection was disconnected on 3.5.89. A request was made for fixing instalments. Rajasthan State Electricity Board fixed 5 instalments of the entire amount on 11.5.90. According to the complainant, his factory remained closed from 3.5.89 to 27.7.90 i.e. 15 months and there was no production, the minimum charges @ Rs. 1,568/- per month for ten months amounting to Rs. 15,680/- were improper. THE complainant had informed in time to the Board about the arrears of amount and the fixing of the instalments. THE Board took ten months time for that and for that period minimum charges were being realised from the complainant. It was stated that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board may be directed not to realise the amount of illegal demand. In compliance of the order amounts were deposited and reconnection fee was deposited on 9.7.90 one month after reconnection was made. It was after the reconnection that the production commenced in the factory. Upto the date of reconnection, a bill for one month was given which the complainant could not deposit. According to the complainant, the opposite party is entitled to realise the amount one month after the production started and reconnection was made. The opposite party filed the version of the case opposing the complaint. He also raised certain preliminary objections in the version of the case - (1) That the relief with respect to exemption from payment of the minimum charges is beyond the scope of the Act and thus relief cannot be granted by a Redressal Forum. (2) That compensation or damages claimed by the complainant cannot be awarded as the case is not one of deficiency in providing service. (3) That complaint has been submitted by Shri Surendra Kumar Joshi as President of the Consumer Protection Council, Beawar and he cannot be granted the relief for damages and as the complaint has also been signed by the partner of Ghatprabha Garnet Girani. (4) That Rajasthan State Electricity Board has not been impleaded as opposite party and so the complaint should not be entertained. (5) The Rajasthan Financial Corporation have taken the possession of M/s. Ghatprabha Garnet Girani on account of the non-payment of the dues and so the Consumer Protection Council nor M/s. Ghatprabha Garnet Girani is consumer.

Parawise reply of the main defence is contained in para 3(2) of the version of the case which isas under:- "3(2) That the contents of Para No. 3(2) are not admitted as stated. As mentioned no application was submitted seeking electric connection by the Consumer Protection Council or by Shri Surendra Kumar Joshi as President. In fact an application was submitted by Shri N.M. Malger seeking the electric connection for 55 H.P. under the category M.I.P. The application was submitted as partner of M/s. Ghat Prabha Garnet Girani. The application was submitted in the office of the Assistant Engineer (0&M) Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Beawar. The application has been received in the office of the Assistant Engineer on 1.10.1985. On the basis of the application submitted the estimate was got prepared by the Junior Engineer and the estimate of Rs. 18,204/- in order to provide the connection but it was not feasible to provide the connection on existing Transformer and the Sanctioning Authority for the applied Load was not the Assistant Engineer nor the Executive Engineer. Therefore, the Estimate prepared was forwarded for further necessary action by the Assistant Engineer to the concerned Executive Engineer (O&M) alongwith the letter dated 20.12.85 and the Executive Engineer after examining the same made certain queries and with regard to the availability of the funds etc. and in order to submit the proposal in complete to the Superintending Engineer, who is the Sanctioning Authority vide letter dated 13.1.1986 and after the detailed enquiry the Assistant Engineer again submitted the proposal alongwith the required necessary information regarding technical and financial sanction to the Executive Engineer after obtaining the necessary details from the Junior Engineer and other staff and thereafter the revised estimate was also prepared on the basis of the existing Transformer, which was only for 25 KVA and accordingly the Estimate for Rs. 25,505/- and after giving a credit of Rs. 8,650/- the balance amount, which was payable, was Rs. 16,855/- and the sanction was issued by the Superintending Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Ajmer in terms of the Chief Engineer (O&M) R.S.EB. Jaipur''s Order No. RSEB/CE/O&M/Sec/VI/F/ L/160 dated 21.1.1983, and accordingly a Demand Note was issued on 18.10.1986 and the amount was deposited on 28.10.86 without making any objection as the previously existing Transformer could not provide the electricity of 55 H.P., as per the application the new Transformer was to be installed as the previous Transformer was of 25 KVA and there was already load of 20 H.P. and as such the necessary sanction and financial sanction and technical feasibility is also to be arranged and to be obtained by the concerned various Authorities. It is also to be mentioned here that the present application was for seeking electric connection in RIJCO Industrial Area at Beawar and, therefore, the necessary time was taken in order to provide and obtain the necessary sanctions as of technical feasibility, the sanction of financial expenditure and to increase the capacity of 25 KVA to 63 K.V.A. but even the necessary electric fittings were not completed by the applicant and the ''L'' Form was submitted only on 17.1.1986 and the necessary checking in pursuance of the ''L'' Form was made on capritious was deposited for outstanding on 28.11.1986 and the Work Order was issued on 24.12.1986 and in pursuance of the Work Order the work was completed on 27.12.1986. A Photo Copy of the ''L'' Form and the Photo Stat Copy of the Work Order is annexed here with and marked as Annexure R/1 and Annexure R/2 and the connection was released on 12.1.1987 after getting of the formalities completed and connection was released and found in order by the Consumer without any objection and the Consumer has signed the Medium Industrial Consumers Installation and Meter Checking/Testing Report dated 12.1.1987 without any objection, and as such now no objection can be made and the consumer is estopped of making any objection. From the above it is clear that no delay has been caused by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board in order to provide the electric connection."

THE facts relating to bribe were denied. It was denied that the electric connection was disconnected after making the payment of the bill. THE electric connection was disconnected on 3.5.89 on account of the non-payment of the electric consumption billing month of April, 89. It was submitted that the instalments cannot be claimed as a matter of right. An application for seeking the instalments in realising the payment of due amount was submitted directly to the Chainnan of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board on 20.3.90. THE Chairman after seeking necessary informations from the Concerned Officer granted five instalments vide order dated 30.4.90. THE five instalments were no deposited and only after depositing one instalment the electric connection was got restored and the remaining instalments have not been deposited. THE Prayer for instalment was made on 7.3.90 and the necessary orders were issued on 30.4.90 that is within a month, it was, therefore, submitted that it is wrong on the part of the Complainant to say that the application was decided after ten months. Annexure R/3 and R/4 are the Photo Stat copies of the application dated 17.3.90 and order dated 30.4.90. THE payment of the electricity amount by instalments was not a right. It was stated in the version of the case that the amount of electric consumption by instalments was not a right, even then the Board had taken lenient view and granted five instalments and after disconnecting the electric connection the transformer of heavy load was removed. After payment of reconnection fee and after deposit of one instalment, electric connection was restored. THEn existing transformers were replaced from 100/5 to 75/5 in order to provide electric connection and K.V.A.H. meter was not supplied and, therefore, the Board had to arrange from other places as the K.V.A.H. meter was not available at Beawar. As soon as the required equipments were arranged and the installation could be made the electric connection was restored. No undue amount was demanded and the bill was rightly prepared which was not paid and the remaining 4 instalments have also not been deposited by the Complainant. THE bills were issued every month and on account of non-payment the electric connection was disconnected on 5.10.90 and till the date of the filing of the version of the case on 20.4.91 and the electric connection can be restored in case the due amount is paid. THE complainant was informed vide order dated 30.4.90 that he is not entitled to get any exemption with regard to the payment of minimum charges. No loss has been accrued on account of the laches. The complainant filed the rejoinder opposing the pleas taken in the version of the case. Mr. N.M. Malger submitted the affidavit dated 5.12.91 insupport of the complaint. On behalf of opposite party affidavit of Mr. P.C. Khandelwal, Officer Incharge was submitted. There is on record a document Annexure R/5 which is an order passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magisrate, 1st Class, Beawar in Civil Misc. Case No. 197/ 1989. The Registered Partnership Firm instituted a suit against the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Ajmer and Jaipur, Superintending Engineer, Ajmerand Assistant Executive Engineer, Beawar. With the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was submitted. The Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order accepted the application for issuing of the temporary injunction in part directing the opposite parties to restore the electric connection to the complainant at their cost. The complainant was directed to deposit the amount as mentioned in the bill inclusive of the rebate amount mentioned in it and it is only after deposit that the electric supply will be started, it was further ordered that no separate reconnection fee will be charged from the complainant.

ON behalf of the complainant written arguments were submitted on 26.5.92. The complainant sent the written arguments by post on 11.5.92. The opposite party submitted reply to the arguments on 21.9.92. We have carefully gone through the complaint, the version of the case, rejoinder, affidavit of the parties, documents filed on their behalf and written arguments. The following main points arise for our consideration in the complaint:- 1. Whether the complainant is entitled for waiving of the minimum charges from July, 89'' to May, 90''? and 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 15,680/- minimum charges amount from July 89'' to May 90'' and compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- being the financial loss suffered on account of the closure of the factory because of the acts of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board ?

"Complainant" is defined in Section 2(1) (b) of the act and the ''Complaint'' is defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. It will be relevant to notice the definition of the "Complaint" which is as under:- "2(1)(c) ''complaint'' means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that: (i) as a result of any unfair trade practice adopted by any trader, the complainant has suffered los or damage; (ii) the goods mentioned in the complaint suffer from one or more defects; (iii) the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods, with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act;"

Admittedly, the complaint does not pertain to the goods at all and as such the complaint at the most as filed is with respect to the service which suffered from deficiency. A close reading of the definition of the ''complaint'' shows that complaint can be filed by making allegations with respect to deficiency in service for obtaining the relief provided by or under the Act. It is, therefore, clear that we have to see whether the complaint which the complainant has filed is with the object for obtaining the relief which has either been provided in the act or under the Act. We may pause here for a moment. The complainant has stated in para 5 of the complaint that he again and again requested the opposite party that the amount of electricity that was outstanding against him may be got deposited in 5 instalments and order to that effect may be passed. The order was passed by the Chairman on 11.5.90 that amount of the outstanding dues may be recovered in 5 instalments as his factory remained closed from 3.5.89 to 27.7.90 and there was no production. Thereafter he stated " ATHA MUJSE MINIMUM CHARGE 1568 X 10 = 15680 RUPEY LIYA GAYE HAI VEH BHI NYAYCHIT NAHI HAI KYOKI MERA DWARA MANDAL KO THATHMY MERI BAKAYA RASI KI KISTO KE LIYAA VADEN KIYA GAYA KINTU MANDAL DWARA KISTO KE ADESH PRKRIYA ME ISME DES MEHA LAGYA GAYA TAHA UNKI TRUTI KA MUJSE DAND DES MEHA KE MINIMUM CHARGE KE ROOP ME VASOL KAR RAHI HAI ATHA MERA APSA ANURODH HAI KI UKAT RASHI JO GARVAGIB HAI MANDAL KO NA LANA KE AVASH KARYA TAKI ME APNI AJIVIKA ARJAN KAR SAKU." On the basis of these facts, it was prayed by the complainant that minimum charges from May, 89'' to July, 90'' may be waived and for harassing the complainant and causing loss to him a sum of Rs. 15,680/- beingthe amount of minimum charges and Rs. 5,00,000/ - as compensation may be awarded to quote the actual words from the complaint. ATHA MERI PRATHNA HAI KI UKAT JULY 89 SE MAY 90 TAK KE MINIMUM CHARGE KI RASHI MAFKARNEKE ADESH KARNE KA KAST KERA TAHA VIDHUT MANDAL DWARA MUJHA PARSHAN KER JO ARTHIK CHATI PHUCHAI GAI HAI ISKA MUVAJA NIMN PARKAR DILAE KA KAST KARA"

THE prayer made is that the amount of minimum charges from May, 89'' to July, 90'' may be waived. THE question is whether such a relief can be granted by a Redressal Forum? Section 14(1) of the Act is as follows :- "14.Finding of the District Forum-(1) if, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to take one or more of the following things; namely :- (a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant; (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."

It is firmly settled that a Redressal Forum constituted under the Act can only grant those reliefs which are enumerated in Section 14(1) of the Act and the complaint can only be filed with respect to the relief provided in or by the Act. It was observed in RIICO v. Premier Paints (1991 CSMR CAS 33) that the reliefs which a Redressal Forum can grant to any complainant are only those specifled in Section 14(1) of the Act. In 1991 Balacheruvulayout (Vuda) Flat Owners Association Vishakhapatnnam v. Urban Development Authority and Ors. I (1992) CPJ 46 (NC)=1991 CSMR CAS 45 it was held that the reliefs asked for by the complainant, namely, handing over the mangement and water supply of the system to the complainant and refund of deposit of water connection and direction not to collect water charges for certain period are not the reliefs which can be granted under Section 14(1) of the Act. In a recent case in Union of India v. Chairman, Madras Provincial Consumer Association (Revision Petition No. 55/92 decided on Oct. 13,1992) II (1992) CPJ 524 (NC) the National Commission ruled that reliefs that can be legally granted under the Act are only those which are enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that the relief of waiving of the minimum charges from may, 89'' to July, 90'' is not covered by any of the reliefs mentioned in Section 14(1) of the Act and such a relief cannot be granted. Reliefs sought are out of the scope of the Act. ''Deficiency'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the act and it is as follows :- "2(1)(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be ma intained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;"

Definition of ''service'' has been given in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. it is as follows :- "2(1)(o) ''service'' means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service." By not waiving the minimum charges it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service. It is said that for fixing of the instalments 10 months time was taken and on account of that the complainant had to pay 10 months minimum charges. In this connection, a prayer was made that restraint order may be passed against the opposite party by not realising the amount from the complainant. As stated above such a relief also cannot be granted. Whether to fix instalments or not is in the discretion of the authority concerned and no direction in this regard can be issued. (See I (1992) CPJ 247 (NC)=1991 CSMR 41=Kongra Annanthoram v. Telecom District Engineer, Mahabub Nagar). THE complainant has claimed Rs. 5 lacs on account of financial loss. He has inflated the claim for the reason that he is not required to pay Court-fee on it. No compensation can be awarded. Firstly, there was no deficiency in service on the basis of which it can be said that the complainant has suffered loss or injury on account of the negligence of the opposite party. Secondly, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the averment relating to the award of compensation. It is settled that compensation can only be awarded on the basis of certain well recognised principles and its quantification thereof. No material whatsoever has been placed by the complainant to substantiate his claim for the award of compensation. It is not necessary to examine the other points. From the foregoing discussion, it follows : (1) that the reliefs which the complainant has sought on behalf of Mr. N.M. Malgar are not the reliefs which can be granted under the Act. (2) that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party so as to claimany compensation from it. Besides this there is no material on the record on the basis of which compensation can be awarded. 13. THE complaint is without substance. It will, therefore, stand dismissed. THEre will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed. ________________