GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD vs GRAHAK HIT SURAKSHA MANDAL KODINAR

THIS appeal arises from order dated 19th March, 1998 rendered by the learned Amreli District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 41/1990 directing the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board to pay to the complainant Rs. 4,700/- by way of compensation and Rs. 750/- by way of cost.

IT was the complainant''s case that the opponent was under legal obligation to supply electric energy on the agreed voltage of 400, and instead the energy supplied was very much below the agreed voltage, that on account of low voltage, electric motors were burnt on six occasions during the period of 10 to 12 months and that this was the result of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the concerned officers/employees of the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board. The opponent resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the same was not maintainable at law, that the transformers were not available, that the consumer created obstacle in the existing transformers and that if there were fluctuations in supply of electricity energy that could not be said to be deficiency in service. The Board installed two transformers of 63 KV on 10th September, 1990. The starting switch was required to be connected with the electric motor and if the pressure was increased or decreased the starting switch would automatically disconnect the supply. If such starting switch was not installed or placed, the electric connection could not be given. If the motor was burnt out it would necessarily mean that the motor must have been connected directly without the switch.

When the matter went for hearing before the learned Forum at first, the learned Forum dismissed the complaint as per order dated 31st may, 1991 accepting the contentions of the Board. On appeal this Commission had occasion to remand the matter to the learned Forum vide order dated 23rd August, 1991 in First Appeal No. 44/91. Once again the matter came to be heard by the learned Forum but on that occasion there was no representation on the part of the opponent GEB. After considering the pleadings and material placed on record the learned Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to the compensation as prayed for on account of low voltage pressure resulting into frequent burning of the motors requiring the complainant to incur expenditure for rewinding the same.

WHEN this appeal came up for hearing no one remained present for the respondent (original complainant). We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant Board (original opponent). In the first place it has been submitted that as per the case put up by the opponent Board in the affidavit in reply the opponent Board could not be held liable on account of the fluctuations in the voltage, even if such fluctuations were established by the complainant without any fault on the part of the complainant. Reference in this connection has been made to a decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in the case of Travancore Oxygen Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, reported in I (1997) CPJ 17 (NC). In that case main dispute was with regard to permissible range of fluctuations. Reference has been made to Clause 1(b) of the agreement which specifies the permissible range of fluctuations only in terms of percentage and not in absolute terms. Reference has also been made to Clause 2(a) which was the force majeure condition. Under such circumstances it was held that in the absence of anything indicating wilful action on the part of the opponent Board resulting in the alleged voltage fluctuations, no deficiency in service could be held. In our considered opinion the decision of the Hon''ble National Commission would apply to the present case. As a matter of fact in the present case the opponent Board has come out with a plausible explanation with regard to some or the other fault on the part of the concerned consumer. The complaint, therefore, deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone. It has been submitted on behalf of the opponent Board that the complaint was not filed by the concerned consumer and he even was not a party to the complaint. He did not sign the complaint. Only the Consumer Organization filed the complaint alleging that the concerned consumer was a member of the said organization. The concerned consumer has not appeared before the learned Forum. Hence the complaint could not have been entertained by the learned Forum. Reference in this connection has been made to a decision of this Commission rendered in Complaint (Original Petition No. 13/95) between Rajiv Niranjanbhai Mehta v. M/s. Anil Textorium Pvt. Ltd. In our considered opinion a recognized Consumer Association might file complaint but in that event the consumer/s for whose cause the Association was filing the complaint he/they would have to be party to the complaint. In the present case the concerned consumer is neither a party to the complaint nor has he signed the complaint. Under such circumstances, the complaint could not have been entertained by the learned Forum.

SINCE the opponent Board would succeed on both the aforesaid grounds following order is required to be passed : Impugned order dated 19th March, 1998 rendered by the learned Amreli District Consumer Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 41/90 is hereby set aside. The Complaint No. 41/90 filed before the Amreli District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum will stand dismissed. This appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.