GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD vs A. MAJID ISMAIL KHATUDA

THIS appeal arises from order dated 5th June, 2003 rendered by the learned Panchmahal District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint Application No. 273/2002 directing the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board to pay to the complainant compensation in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per year on account of loss of earning out of crops which could not be taken for want of electricity supply as per the facts alleged in the complaint and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- on the head of mental harassment as well as cost in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-, also providing for interest on default.

WE have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. WE have gone through the impugned order. WE have gone through the written submissions produced by the learned Advocate for the original complainant. WE have heard him personally. It is not in dispute that the complainant did have electric connection as per the facts set out in the complaint. It is also not in dispute that the wires of electric connection joining the field of the complainant were stolen. What the complainant submitted before the learned Forum was that there was delay in supply of electricity by reconnecting the electric supply with new wires and the delay was to the extent of around 23 months.

Opponent Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB for short) contended before the learned Forum that there were frequent acts of riots/thefts of electricity wires in the area in question. Number of complaints were given to the concerned police station. Opponent GEB produced FIRs in respect of the theft of electricity wires by anti-social and anti-national elements. Thus, it was the case of the opponent GEB that there was no default or imperfection on the part of the opponent GEB in respect of stoppage of electricity supply for which large scale thefts of electric wire was the cause. It had filed FIRs well in time. The theft of electric wires extended to a very huge area of around 1 kms. in different villages. The opponent was required to attend the reconnection of electricity supply in all these villages and considering the time required for attending to the said process the opponent Board could not be said to be guilty of delay in reconnecting the electricity supply.

LEARNED Forum has observed that there were number of complaints with regard to theft of electricity wires in the Panchmahal District and revenue loss to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- was caused to the opponent in the said area of the city of Godhra and district of Panchmahal. LEARNED Forum has also observed that awakened citizens and consumers were expected to render co-operation in the matter of informing the GEB with regard to theft of electricity wires which frequently took place in this area. Yet, learned Forum proceeded to uphold deficiency on the part of the opponent GEB in the matter of theft of electricity wires resulting into stoppage of electricity supply to the complainant''s field and also delay in restoring electricity supply. LEARNED Forum, therefore, accepted the claim of the complainant and awarded the same as per the impugned order. It has been submitted on behalf of the opponent GEB that the case of theft of electricity wires cannot be canvassed against the opponent GEB as theft apparently was committed by some anti-social elements. In our considered opinion this submission deserves to be accepted on the face of facts set out in the complaint. When the cause is connected with the third parties it cannot be attributed to opponent GEB. It may be noted from the admitted facts that it is not that the electricity wires connected only with the field of the complainant were stolen. It has been brought to the notice of the learned Forum as well as the learned Forum has itself observed that there were frequent cases of large scale thefts of electricity wires in the area and large number of agricultural fields were involved and electricity connections to such fields came to be severed on account of non-availability of electricity wires. It will, therefore, clearly appear from such facts that some delay or some time would be taken by the opponent GEB in not only following the procedure but also in restoring the electricity supply by laying the electric lines and connecting the same with the respective fields. In our considered opinion the opponent GEB cannot be held liable for the time taken in seeing that the electric connections were restored by laying fresh electricity lines where electric wires were stolen. In our considered opinion when the opponent GEB has restored the electric connection it cannot be held liable for deficiency in service for the time taken for restoring the electricity supply under such circumstances.

WE have been told that the opponent GEB has also charged for the period during which there was no electricity supply to the complainant''s field on account of theft of electricity wires. In our considered opinion this would clearly amount to deficiency in service as when there was no electric supply there was no reason for charging for electricity connection in question. The rule with regard to non-use of electricity supply will not be applicable in such cases. Hence, the opponent GEB is liable to restore/repay the amount if recovered for the period during which the complainant''s field did not have electric supply. On behalf of the complainant, however, Rule 18(a)(1) has been pressed into service. The rule reads as under : "The Board shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure continuity of supply of power to the consumer but shall not be responsible for any loss to him or damage to his plant and equipment due to interruption in supply of power due to damage to the Board''s plant and equipment for reasons including but not limited to war, mutiny, riot, earthquake, cyclone, tempest, strike, civil commotion, lockout, lighting, fire, flood, accident or breakdown of plant and machinery or caused beyond control of the Board. [The Board shall give notice as early as possible of the probable duration of such interruptions in supply of powers to the consumer.]"

In our considered opinion the above rule will not serve the cause of the complainant. As a matter of fact the rule exonerates the Board from its responsibility with regard to the cause beyond its control. Learned Advocate for the complainant, however, canvassed the decision of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bombay in the case of Mahadeo B. Gulhane v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, reported in III (1995) CPJ 191. In that case the complainant alleged that there was theft of electrical wires as a result of which he could not get electric supply to irrigate his orange garden. Alleging deficiency in service against Maharashtra State Electricity Board he claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- being the alleged loss he sustained in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- and damages. Maharashtra State Electricity Board opposed the claim saying that upon receipt of the complaint with regard to theft of conductor wires the electricity connection was restored. District Forum found that electricity supply was not restored for considerably a long period and upheld the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Board awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- and cost in the sum of Rs. 200/-. Complainant approached the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal praying for enhanced compensation. In the appeal filed by the complainant Maharashtra State Commission had an occasion to observe as under : "As discussed above, we do not find that there is any negligence, much less a negligence of such a magnitute which warrants grant of enhanced compensation to the complainant." In our considered opinion the finding that there was no negligence would support the view which we have taken in this appeal. Reference has also been made to a decision of the Madras State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Alacrity Foundation Ltd. v. The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, reported in I (1993) CPJ 383=1-1993 (1) CPR 194, where it has been observed that in case of inordinate unexplained avoidable delay on the part of Electricity Board in providing service connections to the residential apartment that would amount to deficiency in service. In our considered opinion both on facts as well as on principle this decision will not be applicable to the present case.

REFERENCE has then been made to a decision of Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Sudhakar Panda v. Electrical Section Officer & Ors., reported in III 1993 (1) CPR 498. There, power supply was to be effected within one year from the date of agreement but there was delay of 8 months in completing the work without any explanation. It was in that background that the complaint came to be allowed directing to supply electricity within one week of furnishing test certificate by the complainant failing which to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 100/- per day. This decision will also have no bearing on the facts of the present case.

LEARNED Forum has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, reported in III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=1994 AIR 787. In our considered opinion reference made to that decision will apparently be out of context. It is a settled position of law that public corporation would be liable for deficiency in service where such service is provided for consideration. In the present case there is no question of such deficiency in service where third parties/anti-social elements activated in the area. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly, the complainant did not produce evidence with regard to loss of crop occurred due to non-supply of electricity to the complainant''s agricultural field. Thus the complainant failed to produce evidence in support of the claim made by the complainant. Besides, the complainant has not set out any facts with regard to how he tried to mitigate the alleged loss. Hence, such a huge claim cannot be permitted to go through by any stretch of imagination.

Bearing in mind all the facts and circumstances of the case we pass following order : Impugned order dated 5th June, 2003 rendered by the learned Panchmahal District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Godhra in Complaint Application No. 273/2003 is hereby set aside. However, opponent GEB (appellant herein) is directed to refund/repay whatever amount that has been recovered or collected from the complainant for the period during which there was no electricity supply to the complainant''s field at the relevant point of time. This direction shall be complied with by the opponent GEB within six weeks from today failing which the opponent GEB shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% on such amount from the date on which such amount has been collected. In case no such amount has at all been recovered or in case it has already been refunded, this direction will not operate. This appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to cost through out. Appeal allowed.