EXECUTIVE ENGINEEER, ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION DIVISION (UPSEB) vs ARVIND KUMAR

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.8.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Hardoi in Complaint Case No. 454 of 1992.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the complainant, Arvind Kumar, r/o Bhagwant Nagar, Mallawan, Distt. Hardoi had taken an electricity connection from the opposite party on 11.1.1990 having connection No. 4422. A meter was also installed by the opposite party on 30.1.1991. The payment of electricity charges were being made regularly. On 20.9.1991 there was a sudden spurt in the voltage at Sub-station Mallawan. This resulted into burning of the meter and other electrical ga-gets belonging to the complainant. Three electrical bulbs, two table fan, one stabilizer, one tubelight and the meter were got burnt because of high voltage. It was only on 21.9.1991 after 24 hours the high voltage got stabilized. The information of this incidence was given to the Junior Engineer, Mallawan. Again a representation was made to Sub Divisional Officer of the U.P. State Electricity Board and inspite of enquiry conducted by the Junior Engineer the danger of electrocution continued and the meter was still giving electrical current. The meter has not been replaced. The complainant is being given I.D.F. bills for electrical consumption. The complainant, therefore, lodged a claim before the District Consumer Forum that the burnt meter be replaced free of cost and the bills issued on I.D.F. basis be revised. A compensation be given for the damage caused to the electrical items. The complainant also prayed for compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental tension and a cost of Rs. 200/- for litigation. In all a claim of Rs. 5,200/- was claimed. The opposite party in its written version filed before the District Forum denied the contents of the complaint. Meters are provided on the basis of availability. There was no high voltage and the reason for burning the meter and other equipments may be different. No report was ever made to the authorities of the U.P.S.E.B. by the complainant. The I.D.F. bills are issued on average basis. The complaint is not maintainable because it has been signed by one Shri B.P. Dixit on behalf of the complainant.

The District Consumer Forum, after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that there was deficieny on the part of the opposite parties and hence awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as compensation.

AGGRIEVED of the order of the District Consumer Forum the appellant, U.P.S.E.B. has come in this appeal. Notice was issued to the respondent in the month of November 2001 for 12.2.2002. Notice has not come back unserved. Hence the service of the notice is presumed sufficient.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel has argued that the complaint has been signed by one Sri Dixit and not by the complainant himself. There is no evidence to the fact that the person who has signed the complaint other than the complainant belongs to any registered voluntary organization. The learned Counsel has also argued that there was no incidence of voltage fluctuation and the details of the items which were alleged to have been burnt have also not been given by the complainant. The perusal of the appeal file goes to show that the enquiry in the matter was conducted by Sri S.G. Misra, Junior Engineer of the opposite party. In Para 3 of the report it has been stated that Sub-station, Mallawan gives two phase lights during the peak hours and the supply remains normal in respect of one phase and in rest of the phase voltage gets dropped, as a result of which the power connections do not get energized and instead the voltage gets dropped. This enquiry was conducted by the Junior Engineer after a gap of two months. In the enquiry report itself it is pointed out in Paras 6, 7 and 8 that no specific conclusion can be drawn in regard to the spurt in voltage on the alleged date. The District Consumer Forum in its order has pointed out that the meter of the complainant was replaced. This goes to show that the incidence of high voltage was there due to which the electrical items and the meter of the complainant were got burnt. A perusal of the file will go to show that copy of the judgment and order dated 12.8.1992 was delivered to the opposite party on 20.8.1992. The opposite party sat over the judgment for more than 10 days and it was only on 3.9.1992 that the permission was sought to file the appeal from Head Office. Again the Head Office was approached on 12.9.1992 and the permission was granted on 26.6.1992. The permission was received on 8.10.1992. It is not understood as to how such a long time took place as the distance between Hardoi and Lucknow is merely two hours run. It is also not known as to what was the Head Office of appellant doing between 3.9.1992 to 26.9.1992. The opposite party in the condonation application has stated that the permission was granted on 26.9.1992 and the letter reached them on 8.10.1992. It is surprising that the letter took more than 12 days to reach Hardoi from Lucknow. Therefore the grounds advanced in filing the appeal with delay are not convincing and the appeal is clearly time barred. We, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned District Forum. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let compliance of the order be made within two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.