Executive Engineer vs Jitender Nath Tripathi

These two revision petitions arise from a common order passed by the State Commission on the basis of two appeals filed by the petitioners before this Commission against the order passed by the District Forum, wherein the complainant Jitendra Nath Tripathi (Petitioner in R.P. No. 910 of 2005), had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the U. P. Power Corporation and others.

Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that Shri Jitendra Nath Tripathi had deposited a sum of Rs. 125 on 28.2.2001 for getting the inspection done on the site for purposes of release of electricity connection for his tube-well. It was the case of the complainant that the U. P. Power Corporation had agreed to give the connection from the site of Primary School, Bidanpur, yet when the connection was not being released, the complainant filed a writ before the Hon''ble High Court of Allahabad, who vide its judgment dated 26.4.2002 gave 15 days'' time to U. P. Power Corporation to give the electricity connection. This was also not complied with by the opposite parties. The connection was released much later, only on 22.8.2002. It is in these circumstances a complaint was filed before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the U. P. Power Corporation for not releasing the connection in time and when it did, the supply was erratic, thus, resulting in loss of crop to the complainant to the extent of Rs. 4,80,000. The matter was contested by the opposite parties. The District Forum after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record passed the following order :

"The case of the applicant is hereby admitted partly. The opposite party is hereby directed to provide full voltage of electricity within a period of one month from the date of this order to run the tube-well of the applicant properly. If this is not done so by the opposite party then with effect from 22.2.2003, the opposite party will be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 200 per month to the applicant as compensation till the period the full electric supply is given.

The applicant will not be granted any amount towards losses suffered by him. The applicant has not asked for any other relief.

The information of this decision will be given to the representative of Electricity Department at the time of pronouncement of this decision."

Aggrieved by this order both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission, who through a lengthy and extensive order passed the following order :

"Both the appeals, therefore, succeed in part. The complainant shall be paid Rs. 25,000 compensation within a month by the Power Corporation. Adequate regular power supply shall be ensured within 15 days and the complainant Jitendra Nath Tripathi shall also abide by all the rules and regulations in this respect and make the payments lawfully as and when due. The compensation paid to the complainant will be recovered from the officials after proper enquiry as directed above.

No damage at the rate of Rs. 200 per day is payable and the order of the District Forum to that effect is set aside.

Parties will bear their own cost."

Dissatisfied with this order, these revision petitions have been filed before us. Revision Petition No. 910 of 2005 :

In this revision, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that there was no fault on their part for which the State Commission has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000 against them for the simple reason that when the complainant applied for electricity connection, there was an order of the department dated 28.12.99 to the effect, that no new private tube-well connection would be released, which was relaxed only on 20.9.2001, thus making the complainant eligible for electricity connection. It took them sometime to release the connection after having given the requisite relief(s) as per the scheme and petitioner deposited the requisite amount on 31.12.2001. Upon which the instructions were issued for issue of connection but in the meantime on 4.1.2002 and 23.1.2002, ban was re-imposed on release of fresh electric connections to private tube-wells. In view of this order of the Department, the complainant filed a writ before the Hon''ble High Court, in which Hon''ble High Court ordered on 16.4.2002 for grant of connection within 15 days after completing the formalities. The complainant was directed to lift the requisite store for carrying out the installation, which was not done by the complainant and ultimately it was only on 22.8.2002 when the connection was released. In the above circumstances, as would be seen, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the U. P. Power Corporation.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, the above sequence of events, two things come before us clearly-firstly, that once ban was lifted on 20.9.2001, and especially when the money had been released then they should have taken much lesser time to energise the connection. In fact, the material shows they took almost 4 months to demand the amount. The second leg of the deficiency we see is that even when the Hon''ble High Court had ordered the connection to be released within 15 days effective from 16.4.2002 yet they took slightly over 4 months to release the connection. Thirdly, we are not at all satisfied with the plea advanced by the petitioner U. P. Power Corporation that under Electricity laws it is the duty of the ''Consumer'' to lift the stores from the store division for its installation at the site. No such Electricity law on this point has been shown to us in respect of this contention, hence, it is rejected.

In the aforementioned circumstances, deficiency is writ large on the part of the petitioner with regard to releasing of the electric connection after considerable delay, for which if the State Commission has awarded Rs. 25,000 as compensation, in our view, it does not call for any interference.

Revision Petition No. 1255 of 2005 :

This revision petition has been filed by the complainant before the District Forum making following three prayers before us :

"(a) Set aside the impugned order dated 4.1.2005, passed by the State Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in Appeal No. 1265/SC/2003 filed by the petitioner and in Appeal No. 598/SC/2003 filed by the respondents and order dated 21.4.2003, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Koushambhi, U. P., in Complaint No. 82 of 2002 with respect to the compensation and award an appropriate compensation in terms of the prayer made by the petitioner before the District Forum, i.e., Rs. 4,80,000 alongwith pendente lite and future interest ;

(b) direct the respondents to provide the adequate power connection for the running of 10 horse power tube-well;

(c) grant further compensation of Rs. 50,000 towards the litigation expenses."

We heard the learned counsel for the parties. As far as the first prayer is concerned, no material of whatever nature has been shown to us to justify the award of compensation of Rs. 4,80,000 in the absence of which we see no merit in this prayer.

As far as the relief sought under ''b'' is concerned, as is clear from the order passed by the State Commission, they have given clear direction on this point, when they observed, "adequate regular power supply shall be ensured within 15 days." If this order is not complied with, the petitioner is free to go for execution of the order passed by the State Commission.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it should be ensured that voltage is properly maintained. It needs to be appreciated that voltage fluctuation is the outcome of several other factors many of which may not always be necessarily under the control of the respondent U. P. Power Corporation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to produce the document/''Agreement'' entered into between the parties but despite having given time no such document/ material has been produced in support of this contention, hence, we leave it at that.

As far as third prayer is concerned, in view of the fact State Commission has granted Rs. 25,000, in our view, no further relief is called for.

In the aforementioned circumstances we see no merit in both the revision petitions, hence dismissed.

However, it is expected from the responsible public body like U. P. Power Corporation that they will observe the direction of the State Commission with regard to the adequate regular power supply at a correct voltage as far as possible within their supply constraints, depending on electricity supply from different sources.

Both the revision petitions stand disposed of in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.