GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD vs GRAHAK HIT SURAX MANDAL

ORIGINAL opponent Gujarat Electricity Board has brought in challenge order dated 28.8.2001 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amreli in Consumer Dispute Case No. 83 of 1992.

WE have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant Gujarat Electricity Board, now appellant and Mr. M.J. Bodiya, the learned representative for the complainant. WE have gone through the impugned order. WE have also gone through the decisions submitted. It would appear that the complainant applied for agricultural electric connection of 5 H.P. on 2.2.1984 by paying deposit of Rs. 150 to the opponent Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB for short). Having come to know that the applicants of the year 1984 were being electric connection, he enquired about the fact from the opponent GEB in the year 1986 but was informed that his name was not in the priority list. Some correspondence ensued between the parties thereafter. According to the complainant, some persons in the waiting list who applied for electric connection subsequent to him had been given electric connection. He, therefore, approached the learned Forum for appropriate direction for giving electric connection also for compensation in the year 1992 by filing the complaint in question. He alleged unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the opponent GEB. The opponent GEB resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the complainant could not be said to be a consumer in the eye of law, that the complaint was barred by limitation and that there was neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent GEB as alleged. According to opponent GEB there was no discrimination practised by it in the matter of giving electric connection. It has also been submitted before us that some connections might have been given from the list of applicants who applied for electric connection on emergency basis (tatkal basis).

Considering the material placed on record and after hearing the parties, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant was justified in his submission that there was a great delay in the matter of granting of electric connection in his favour particularly when other applicants were given electric connection. The learned Forum, therefore, directed for carrying out survey on emergency basis and give electric connection to the complainants. The learned Forum also directed payment of compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,000 per month from January 1987 till the electric connection was given to the complainant. It is that order which has been canvassed in this appeal.

THE learned Advocate for the opponent GEB would first contend that the complaint was time-barred inasmuch as it was filed much beyond the period of limitation of two years as prescribed under Section 24A of the . In our considered opinion, this argument cannot be accepted inasmuch as the complainant was very much in the waiting list and he was required to wait for his turn for grant of electric connection. In that view of the matter, till his application either came to be granted or came to be rejected the cause of action would have to be said as continuing cause of action. Hence, the complaint insofar as prayer for grant of electricity connection was concerned could not be said to be barred by limitation. However, no person would wait for such a long time if, in fact, he was suffering from loss or damage of the amount in the sum of Rs. 1,000 per month apart from the fact that compensation as also grant of compensation @ Rs. 1,000 per month would be hit by the principle of remoteness of damage. That prayer would not be entertainable on the ground of period of limitation. It has then been submitted that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer in the eye of law. It is not in dispute that he paid fees in the sum of Rs. 150 for obtaining electric connection. Therefore, he became consumer of the opponent GEB in the matter of process of providing service for grant of electric connection. In any event he can be said to be a prospective consumer and, therefore, the submission that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer cannot be accepted.

IT has finally been submitted that the prayer as well as award of monthly compensation is devoid of evidence as also it is hit by the principles of remoteness of damage. The complainant''s learned representative is not in a position and will not be in a position to make good the prayer for compensation or compensation as granted by the learned Forum. In that view of the matter we propose to set aside that part of the order. We however propose to award lumpsum cost and compensation in favour of the complainant. ORDER Impugned order dated 28.8.2001 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amreli in Consumer Dispute Case No. 83 of 1992 is hereby modified as under: (a) The opponent Gujarat Electricity Board will grant electric connection without taking any further charge from the complainant within two months from today. (b) The opponent Gujarat Electricity Board will pay lump-sum compensation and cost to the complainant in the sum of Rs. 2,000. That amount shall be paid by the opponent GEB also within two months from today.

This appeal is accordingly partly allowed, with no further order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.