H S E B NOW H V P N vs HARI SINGH

THIS is an appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 5. 3. 2000 in Complaint Case No. 254 of 1998, Sh. Hari Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board (H. S. E. B) and Others.

BRIEFLY stated the averments made in the complaint are that the Complainant was running an Atta Chaki through an electric connection No. 3-9/1289. The Complainant could not run the Atta Chaki for 6-7 months as he had to attend to his ailing brother. In November 1992, the Complainant received a bill amounting to Rs. 12,078. On his raising objection, the said bill was corrected and only Rs. 3,114. 41 was deposited by the Complainant against the aforesaid bill. However, on 25. 2. 1994, a new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant bearing No. N7-229. After the installation of the new meter, a bill for Rs. 3,158. 96 payable on 9/10. 5. 94 was sent to the complainant and prior to the deposit of this bill, the OP sent another bill of Rs. 15,000, which was payable up to 7/8. 6. 1994. This demand of Rs. 15,000 was also wrong and illegal and the Complainant challenged this before the Arbitrator. A Superintending Engineer of the OP acting as the Arbitrator decided the matter vide his award dated 1. 3. 1996 declaring the demand of Rs. 15,000 as incorrect. It is alleged that the business of the complainant was badly effected as the Atta Chaki remained closed for a long time because the complainant had to pursue the arbitration proceedings and also he had filed a civil suit in this case and moreover, his electric connection remained disconnected for non-payment of bill of Rs. 15,000. The complainant avers that he had suffered pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs. 30,000 and had also suffered great mental tension and harassment for which, he has demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation. The complainant has also prayed in the complaint that the amount of compensation for pecuniary loss and mental tension amounting to Rs. 80,000 be ordered to be paid to him along with interest @ 24% per annum. The version of the OPs is that the bill amounting to Rs. 12,078 for the month of November 1993 was corrected and it has also been admitted that the bill amounting to Rs. 15,000 was quashed by the Arbitrator vide his award dated 1. 3. 1996. However, all other averments made by the Complainant had been denied. It has also been stated by the OPs that the connection of the Complainant was not disconnected for non payment of Rs. 15,000. It has been further stated by the OPs that when a checking party checked the premises of the Complainant, he was found adopting malpractices and theft of energy but inadvertently due to clerical mistake, he was charged under Circular No. 5/91 and only due to this reason, the Arbitrator gave his award in favour of the complainant. It has further been stated that the award in question till today has not been made the Rule of the Court and therefore, it is merely a waste paper and no relief can be given to the complainant on the basis of the same.

The learned District Forum after listening to the parties and going through the evidence on record found that neither party has proved any date of disconnection or restoration of the connection but disconnection has been admitted by the OPs. The learned District Forum held that negligence and carelessness of the OPs is clearly established and, therefore, there was deficiency in service. The learned District Forum, therefore, directed the OPs to pay the Complainant the sum of Rs. 18,000 on account of loss of business and further pay Rs. 2,000 on account of harassment and mental agony etc. It further directed the OPs to pay another sum of Rs. 1,000 as costs of litigation and comply with the directions of the Court within one month from the date of the order.

AGGRIEVED by this order of the learned District Forum, the OPs have filed this appeal before the Haryana State Commission, which was transferred to this Commission under the orders of the Hon''ble National Commission. Initially, Mr. Rohit Dheer, Advocate appeared for the appellants/ops whereas on the date of the final hearing i. e. on 12. 7. 2007, none appeared on their behalf. Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate represented the respondent/complainant. A perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by the appellants indicates that as per the appellants, the complaint was time barred and the connection of the Complainant was disconnected when he was found making malpractices and theft of energy. It has further been stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant had availed the remedy of civil suit and arbitration and the Complainant has neither got the arbitration award made the Rule of the Court nor challenged the same for claiming compensation.

MR. Ashok Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondent/complainant drew the attention of the Bench to the award of Arbitrator dated 1. 3. 1996 wherein it has been recorded that there seems to be some foul play and attempt has been made to penalize the petitioner for the reasons known to the concerned officials and further records that the Court is not at all convinced with the charging report by the Respondents and the Petitioner is not liable to pay. He further stressed that it has also been recorded in the order that the OPs did not follow the circular while dealing with the case. He submitted that the impugned order is just fair and legal and should be upheld and the appeal should be dismissed being devoid of merit. We have gone through the appeal file of the complaint case as well as the impugned order and have critically scrutinized grounds of appeal and have also heard carefully the learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant. The first plea taken by the Appellants in their grounds of appeal is that the complaint is time barred. However, there is nothing on record to show any substance in this plea. It is a bald assertion made in the grounds of appeal, which cannot be accepted as such. The next plea of the appellants is that since the Complainant has availed the remedy of Arbitration and Civil Court, he cannot come to the Consumer Fora for any further relief. In this context, it is to be mentioned that the award of the Arbitrator who himself is a senior officer of the OPs is quite clear and categoric in stating that the complainant has been wrongly penalized by the OPs. There is also nothing on record to substantiate the version of the OPs that the premises of the complainant was checked and he was found adopting malpractices and making theft of electric energy. Nothing by way of checking report has been placed on record. The case pertains to the year 1994 and the award of the Arbitrator was given as early as 1. 3. 1996. However, the Appellants/ops have placed nothing on record to show what action had they taken to challenge this award, which was against them or to get any verdict from any other Appellate Authority to the contrary. It cannot, therefore, lie in their mouth at this stage that this award is a mere waste paper based on which no relief can be given to the Complainant. Such an attitude only indicates arrogance on the part of the OPs and also to an extent confirms the observations of the Arbitrator that there seems to be some foul play and an attempt has been made to penalize the petitioner for the reasons best known to the concerned officials. There is nothing on record to prove that the bill amounting to Rs. 15,000 to be paid up to 7/8. 6. 94 sent to the Complainant by the OPs was based on either the actual consumption for some time period by the complainant or levied on him as some penalty. On the other hand, it is categoric view of the Arbitrator appointed by the OPs themselves that bill for Rs. 15,000 charged to the petitioner on account of suspected theft of energy is not correct and is, therefore, not payable by the petitioner. As is apparent, the complaint to the Arbitrator was for quashing the levy of Rs. 15,000 as penalty to be paid by the complainant whereas this complaint, filed before the District Forum, is for compensating the Complainant for deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants. These are, therefore, two separate issues and therefore, the plea of the appellants that since the complainant has utilized the remedy available to him in the shape of Arbitration and filing of civil suit, has no merit as this complaint has been filed in the matter of deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and not for quashing the penalty for which he had gone to the Arbitrator.

IN view of the above discussion, we are in consonance with the view expressed by the learned District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in disconnecting the electric supply to the Complainant and because of this deficiency in service on their part, the Complainant suffered financial loss as well as mental agony and harassment. Consequently, we find that the impugned order is just, fair and legal and needs no interference. We, therefore, uphold the same and dismiss the appeal as it lacks substances with costs, which we quantify as Rs. 2,000.

COPIES of this judgment be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.