Executive Engineer M S E B vs Ashok Laxman Jere

THIS is an appeal filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Board (M.S.E.B.) against the order of District Fourm, Pune dated 24.9.1992 passed in Complaint No. 485/91.

IN a consumer complaint, Shri A.L. Jere alleged that he wanted electricity for his paper conversion unit and therefore, he deposited Rs. 2550/ - on 19.5.87 with M.S.E.B. The complainant alleged that there has been delay in releasing him the electric supply by the M.S.E.B., and therefore, he alleged that he suffered great loss of his business. The complainant therefore, prayed in his complaint to refund his deposit of Rs. 2550/ - with interest and claimed compensation. The complaint was filed on 9.7.1991. The Opposite Party i.e. M.S.E.B. filed its written reply and contended that there was no delay to supply the power line and also alleged that the electricity was supplied to the complainant. The District Forum after investigation found that the claim of M.S.E.B. about the supply of electricity to the complainant was totally false and the electricity supply line was never connected to the complainant premises and therefore he could not use the electricity for the production of his paper unit. The complainant further alleged that he sent many complaints to the electricity board but no reply was sent to him. It is further alleged by the complainant that although the electricity was not supplied to him yet he was sent electricity consumption bill for minimum charges, of the meter rent. The District Forum therefore comes to the conclusion that this is a case where the officials of M.S.E.B. were grossly negligent in rendering the promised service to the complainant. The District Forum therefore directed M.S.E.B. to refund the deposit amount of Rs. 2550/ - with 11% per annum interest and Rs. 500/ - towards Mentally suffering and Rs. 36,000/ - towards his business loss and Rs. 500/ - as cost. We have heard Shri Panchal, Advocate for the appellant and the respondent in person. According to Shri Panchal, learned Advocate for the appellant, the complaint was filed by the complainant beyond the period of limitation and therefore, the District Forum should not have taken any cognizance of the complaint. In order to support his submission, Shri Panchal submitted that the deposit was made by the complainant on 19.5.87 and the complaint was filed on 9.7.1991 obviously after the lapse of 3 years periods. We do not agree with this submission of Shri Panchal for the simple reason that the amount of Rs. 2550/ - continued in deposit with M.S.E.B. and therefore, the complainant has demanded the said deposit. The complaint was thus filed within a period of three years i.e. on 9.7.1991. In our view, therefore the complaint filed by the complainant is not barred by the limitation. Another contention raised by Shri Panchal is about the calculation of claim of compensation amount of Rs. 36,000/ -. According to Shri Panchal there is no basis for working out the loss of complainant and therefore the grant of Rs. 36,000/ - towards compensation is arbitrary and therefore, requires to be set aside. We find that Shri Panchal is justified to certain extent that the Distt. Forurri has quantified the complainants claim for Rs. 36,000/ - without any basis. However, the Distt. Forum has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances to grant the compensation to the complainant which are very eloquent. We find that although the complainant paid the initial deposit of Rs. 2550/ -. On 19.5.87 for the supply of electricity, yet he was never supplied the electricity by M.S.E.B. as a result of which the complainant under exhasperation closed his manufacturing unit. The complainant could not proceed further with his manufacturing unit for want of electricity. It is therefore obvious that the complainant must have been required to invest some more money to establish the unit. All the expenses and efforts made by the complainant were rendered useless due to non -supply of electricity by M.S.E.B. It is therefore apparent that the complainant had to suffer some loss. It is true that the complainant has not placed material before the Distt. Fourm as to what was his loss.

APART from the negligence on the part of M.S.E.B. rendered the promised service as mentioned above we also find that the complainant had to suffer on account of negligence on the part of M.S.E.B. officials. It is stated that although the complainant did not consume the electricity, he was submitted the Bills for minimum charges of the meter rent. This definitely depicts the sorry state of affairs with the M.S.E.B. which caused the harassment to the complainant. It is also on record that according to the responsible officials of M.S.E.B. namely Shri Mahadik, Asstt. Accountant and Shri Gaikwad, Sub -Engineer some bills were paid by the complainant, about the consumption of electricity. The said statements made by the aforesaid two officials were found to be false, after investigation made by the District Forum. It is stated in para -5 of the impugned order that the bills were wrongly paid by one Sai Enterprises and when Sai Enterprises lodged a complaint about wrong payment made by them because of mistake of M.S.E.B. The M.S.E.B. informed Sai Enterprises to recover that amount from the concerned consumer namely the complainant. These are two glaring examples of deficiencies as a result of negligence in the service of M.S.E.B. Considering these facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the complainant deserves the payment of compensation but not to the extent of Rs. 36,000/ - as quantified by the Distt. Forum. Hence, we would like to reduce the amount of compensation from Rs. 36,000/ - to Rs. 5,000/ - only. However, other findings reached by the District Forum requires to be maintained. The District Forum is correct in directing the M.S.E.B. to refund Rs. 2550/ - to the complainant with 11% per annum interest and Rs. 500/ - towards cost.

AFTER careful consideration of the impugned order, we find that the District Forum has repeatedly observed in the impugned order that this is a case where the officials of M.S.E.B. were grossly negligent in dealing with the case of the complainant. Considering this observation, we find that this is a fit case where we would like to direct M.S.E.B. to recover the amount of compensation and cost from those officials who are responsible in causing loss to the complainant. We also direct the M.S.E.B. to pay amount of compensation from its fund initially and then to recover it from concerned employees who are responsible for the negligence from their salaries. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER

Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that amount of compensation of Rs. 36,000/ - is reduced to Rs. 5,000/ - to be paid to the complainant towards compensation. The rest of the order of District Forum is upheld. We further direct M.S.E.B. to pay amount from its fund and then recover Rs. 6,000/ - from its employees who are responsible for causing loss to the complainant. Thus, M.S.E.B. shall pay to the complainant Rs. 2,550/ - towards deposit with 11 % per annum interest and Rs. 5,000/ - as compensation and Rs. 500/ - as cost of this appeal within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realisation. Appeal allowed.