HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs NARESH KUMAR

FIRST appeal No. 473/93 by Haryana State Electricity Board (for short Board) and First Appeal No. 487/93 by Shri Naresh Kumar, the complainant, are directed against the order dated 24.8.93 of the Haryana State Commission at Chandigarh allowing the complaint and directing the Board to restore the electric supply of the complainant and also pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation for the so called patent and glaring deficiency in service besides costs of Rs. 5,000/ -.

THE complainant alleged that he is a proprietor of a reputable business establishment in the name and style of Gupta Rice and General Mills, that the said Mill had admittedly been sanctioned an electric connection for running the Mill, that the cable installed by the Board from the transformer to the meter of the complainant was in a state of disrepair and had been sparking at several places leading to the ignition of the rice husk lying in the Mill which had been burnt a number of times, that the complaint has been lodged with the Board, and that on 10th September, 1993 the complainant expressly contacted Shri N.D. Agarwal, Sub Divisional Officer with an urgent prayer to replace the cable or repair the same and that he refused to do so unless a sum of Rs. 1000/ - was paid as illegal consideration. It is pleaded that as the complainant refused to accede to this unreasonable de -mand, the official got infuriated and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is further alleged that on 11th February, 1993 at about 5.30 p.m. the said Shri R.D. Aggarwal alongwith other employees visited the Mill of the complainant in his absence and asked the Chowkidar to load 10 bags of rice in the van of the opposite party on pain of hostile action but the Chowkidar of the Mill expressed his inability to meet such a demand and informed the complainant about the same and that some employees of the Board on 12th February, 1993 disconnected the electric supply without any notice and without disclosing any reason therefor or affording any opportunity of hearing to the complainant and consequently the complainant rushed for redress to the Senior Officers but the electric connection was not restored. The complainant alleged that he suffered grave financial loss besides humiliation because of the deficiency in service of the Board in illegally disconnecting the electric supply and not restoring it. The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/ -. The stand of the Board before the State Commission is that on 11.2.93 at 4.00 p.m., the S.D.O. Mr. Bhawani alongwith the staff and S.D.O., Jind visited the premises of the Mill for routine inspection /checking of the meter equipment installed at the site, that Shri Joginder and Shri Devi Dayal, and the Munims of the firm were present at the site, that the inspection was carried out in the presence of both the representatives of the Mill and it was found that Yellow phase P.T. wire joint in CT/PT Chamber was loose and thus the meter was recording 1/3rd of the actual consumption or 33% less than the actual consumption and that the representatives were asked to sign the inspection report and meter sealing record to which they refused. It is alleged that the officials of the Board had no option but to disconnect the supply and to raise a demand of Rs. 73,837.46 to compensate slow running of the meter in the past.

THE State Commission framed the question whether the Haryana State Electricity Board or its official can arbitrarily disconnect the electric supply of their consumers without any notice. The State Commission admitted documents PI to P25 and respondents documents R1 to R3 and also received the affidavits of Shri N.K. Kumar, Shri Anil Kumar, Shri Devi Dayal and Shri Joginder on behalf of the complainant and affidavits of Shri N.K. Aggarwal, S.D.O. and Shri R.N. Jindal on behalf of the Board. The witnesses were cross -examined before the State Commission. The State Commission in a well -reasoned and detailed order came to the conclusion that both as a matter of fact and equally as a matter of law and statutory rules, the Boards officials are not entitled to arbitrarily disconnect the electric supply of the complainant on the mere alleged basis of one or the other employee of the complainant refusing to sign some documents. As there was discrepancy and variations in the date of inspection, the State Commission on the appreciation of the evidence opined that it is extremely doubtful whether the Document R3 was prepared as alleged and purported to have been done on behalf of the officials of the Board and further whether the consumer or his employees Joginder Pal and Devi Dayal had ever refused to sign or attest the same. The State Commission also noticed the provisions of Sections 20, 24 and 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act as well as statutory instruction No. 115 of the Sales Manual issued by the Board and came to the conclusion that the Board or its officials cannot arbitrarily disconnect the electric supply of their consumers without any notice to them. The State Commission granted a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - besides directing the restoration of electric supply and costs of Rs. 5000/ -.

WE have heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The main submission of the Counsel for the Appellant is that the finding of the State Commission that it is extremely doubtful whether Exhibit R2 was prepared as alleged and purported to have been done on behalf of the officials of the Board and further whether the consumer or his employees Joginder Pal and Devi Dayal had ever refused to sign or attest the same, is not sustainable on the face of the entries in the register of Inspection maintained by S .D .O. M&P, Bhi wani. There is no merit in this submission. The stand taken by the Board in its written statement is that the inspec -tion party had reached and done the inspection on the 12th February, 1993 at 4.00 p.m. but Annexures R2 and R3 record the inspection on 11.2.93. Exhibit R2 is again dated 16.2.93 under the signatures of Shri R.N. Jindal. It is the Boards case that the Inspection Report Exhibit R2 was prepared at the very spot of inspection and the representatives of the complainant were asked to sign the Inspection Report and meter reading record to which they refused. Both S/Shri Joginder and Devi Dayal gave sworn testimony that at no stage any inspection report had been made or presented to them and they refused to sign. In cross -examination of both these witnesses, it was not suggested to them that they had declined to sign the alleged inspection report. On these established facts, the inference is irresistible that Exhibits R2 and R3 had been prepared subsequently to support and justify the disconnection. We uphold the finding of the State Commission that the Board has failed to establish the very foundation upon which they summarily proceeded to take the drastic action of disconnection of the complainants electric supply without any notice. Report Exhibit R -2 record s that when the accuracy of the meter was checked, it was found within limits, but the same was running slow by 33% because Yellow Phase P.T. wire joint in CT/ PT Chamber was loose and thus the meter was recording l/3rd of the actual consumption less. It is not seriously contended that the view taken by the State Commission that such disputes are fully covered by Sub -section (6) Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, and proviso expressly lays down a period of not less than 7 days notice before disconnection, is not correct. We uphold the reasoning and conclusion of the State Com -mission that the Board is guilty of the deficiency in service which it had undertaken to render to the consumer under the Indian Electricity Act and the Electricity Supply Act as also the statutory instructions of its own sales manual by disconnecting the electricity supply without any prior notice.

THE last submission is that the State Commission erred in awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - and at best it should have awarded compensation for the period of notice as prescribed under Sections 20, 24 and 26 of the Indian Electricity Act. In the cross appeal the complainant seeks enhancement of the compensation of the amount claimed in the complaint. The electric supply of the complainant was disconnected on 12th February, 1993 and was restored only on 6th of April, 1993 under the orders of the State Commission. The State Commission on the basis of the evidence on the record evaluated that the complainant would have suffered loss of Rs. 50,000/ - during that period as the Mill was not running. We find the assessment of the compensation by the State Commission is on sound principles and is fair, the quantification by the State Commission is upheld. Before, parting with the case, it may be noticed that the Board has withdrawn the notice served upon the complainant by the Boards Memo No. 227 dated 13.9.93 which demanded a payment of Rs. 86,108/ - including Rs. 73,877.46 on account of additional charges as per M & P checking report of dated 11.2.93 and the running bill pending from March, 1993 and August, 1993. The amount of Rs. 55,000/ - had been tendered by cheque in favour of the complainant before the State Commission. In the result, both these appeals fail and are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeals dismissed.