HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs PIRTHI SINGH

THIS is a Revision Petition against the order dated 15th December, 1992 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh, in First Appeals No. 346 and 352 of 1992.

THE facts leading to this Revision Petition are that the present Respondent Prithi Singh had filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal against the Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchukula (for short the Board), through its Chairman/Secretary, XEN Haryana State Electricity Board, Pundri and Sub Divisional Officer (1st),H.S.E.B., Pundri. hi his complaint, he averred that he had applied in the general category for an electric connection for 7.5 H.P. motor for the purpose of irrigation of his fields situated at village Barsana, Tehsil and District Kaithal and had furnished security amounting to Rs. 250/- on 30.12.1987. The Board has framed a policy to provide electricity connection within a period of one year of the submission of the test report. On receipt of the demand notice, the complainant submitted test report on 29.6.1989 and it was duly verified by the authorities of the opposite party. A grievance was made by him that the Board is giving priority to the special category applicants at the cost of the general category applicants. It was pointed out by him that he has already invested Rs. 30,000/- on account of motor, starter, kotha and boring of the tube-well etc. in the hope of energising his tube-well. He has suffered huge loss because of his inability to irrigate his fields for want of electric connection. He demanded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lakh and also prayed for issuing a direction to the opposite party for P providing the electric connection to him. The Board in its written statement raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction and also that (lie complainant had no cause of action. On merits, the plea taken was that no assurance was given to the complainant for the supply of the connection immediately and further it depends upon the availability of material etc. It was further the plea that the Board had withdrawn minimum 60% connections from the general category and the priority will be given to those consumers who bid submitted test reports prior to 31st of March, 1989on seniority basis. It was also stated that J the connection would be given to the consumer in his turn, and that no loss had been suffered by the complainant nor was the Board liable there for.

THE District Forum allowed the complaint and issued directions to the Board to release electric connection to the complainant''s tubewell with effect from 15th December, 1992. It was flirt her ordered that in the event of delay beyond the said period, the Board will pay compensation @ Rs. 100/- per day.

FEELING aggrieved of that order, the Opposite Party as well as the Complainant filed separate appeals before the State Commission. Vide impugned order, appeal of the Opposite Party was dismissed while the appeal filed by the Complainant was allowed and he was awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as damages/ compensation on account of alleged deficiency in the rendering of service by the Opposite Parties. Not satisfied with the above order of the State Commission, the Board has filed this Revision Petition before us. It was argued before us on behalf of the Petitioner that under Section 14 of the Act no order can be passed by the va rious Fora constituted under the Act directing the Board to give connection to a consumer. This argument has now no force in view of the amendment introduced in Section 14(1) of the Act vide Ordinance No. 34 of 1993: Opposite Party can now be ordered to remove the defects or deficiencies in the services in question. According to the complainant, the Board has been deficient in the rendering of services inasmuch as it has not provided the electric connection to his tubewell in spite of submission of the test report.

THE next argument of the learned Counsel for the Board is that the order of the District Forum, which has been confirmed by the State Commission is based upon adverse inferences drawn against the Board for non-supply of certain information which was not incidental nor it was called for deciding the main issues nor there is a finding that the Board has violated any rule, direction or instruction issued by it. We are of the opinion that this argument has some. It has to be dealt with in detail.

IT was urged on behalf of the Complainant before the District Forum that according to the policy framed by the Board, electric connection has to be provided within a period of one year after submission of the test report. However, we have noticed that the order of the District Forum or the State Commission does not refer to any documents from which it can be inferred that the Board has framed any rule to provide electric connection within such a period. The complain-ant respondent has filed before us some extract from some Sales Manual. According to Instruction No. 26, electric connection to prospective consumers of tubewells has to be give within three months after the receipt of the test report. It is not clear whether the Sales Manual from which those instructions have been extracted refer to the Board or whether those instructions '' are still in force. As noticed earlier, no such document was produced before the District Forum or the State Commission. Therefore, without giving any opportunity to the other party to rebut it, we cannot act upon them. It was urged on behalf of the Board before the District Forum that the complainant had been granted a particular number in the list of all the applicants who want electricity connection for running tube well and the turn of the Complainant has not yet matured. This argument was brushed aside by the District Forum by saying that the exact-position of the complainant in the list has not been disclosed by the Board nor a copy of the list has been placed before it and in the absence of it, it is not clear what criteria was followed by the Board in preparing the list and, therefore "the possibility of arbitrariness becomes highly probable,,. It was further observed that even the seniority given to the complainant has been interfered with on more than one occasion. If these questions were to be decided, the Board ought to have been asked to submit the said list of applicants. Such an adverse remark should not have been drawn without giving an opportunity to the Boa rd to explain its conduct. It was not the case of the Complainant that his seniority in the list has been superseded.

THE seniority of the complainant got interfered with as a joint seniority list was prepared in respect of the L.T. (Low Tension) and H.T.(High Tension) categories. Previously, there used to be separate lists for the L.T. applicants and H.T. applicants. If any clarification about that change was necessary, it was incumbent upon the District Forum to ask the Board to clarify the same. It may be mentioned here that this change was effected by the Board vide Sales Circular No. 19 of 1992 issued by it. This circular also laid down that the existing condition of giving the minimum 60% connections from general category was being withdrawn. We are doubtful if the various Fora constituted under the Act can ignore the various Sales Circulars issued by the Board. The State Commission did realise this infirmity in the order of the District Forum but explained it by making the following observation: "We regret our inability to find any inherent infirmity in the order of the District Forum on the alleged ground of its disapproval of the Board''s policy matters or circulars. It is true that there is a passing observation here and there in the order which may be construed to such an effect. However, this by itself cannot possibly invalidate the otherwise considered in-depth adjudication rendered by the judgment under appeal. As would appear from the record and the order, the heart of the matter is that the Board had itself issued a service connection order in favour of the complainant after nearly 1½ year on his application. It is not in dispute that in compliance with the same the complainant had incurred sizeable financial expenses to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-in completing the formalities of the test report etc."

Expenses incurred by the complainant appears to have swayed the mind of the State Commission.

WE need not delve further on the various infirmities pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission. Suffice it to say that in the light of the above observations, we are of the opinion that the State Commission has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction while confirming the various observations made by the District Forum same of which have been noticed above. This case requires fresh hearing by the District Forum particularly in the light of some further circulars and instructions filed by the respondent before us. Accordingly we set aside the orders of the State Commission as well as of the District Forum and remand the case to the District Forum for fresh disposal after giving a fair opportunity to the parties to adduce any evidence if they so desire. We make it clear that the electricity connection which is said to have been released to the Complainant will not be interfered with till the final decision of the complaint filed by the Complainant. However, the complainant will be liable to refund all the monetary benefits which he has received as per the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission within one month from the receipt of this order. In the circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs.

BEFORE we part with this order we may observe that it is unfair on the part of the Board to issue demand notice to the consumer when it is not possible for it to release the electricity connection within a reasonable time. If the Board is unable to release the connection in the near future, it should not issue the demand notice thereby causing the consumer to incur unnecessary and unproductive expenses. Instruction No. 26 of the Sales Manual (irrespective of the fact by whom and when it was issued) referred to above is a salutory one. It reads as follows: "Time limit for grant of connection. The connections to various categories of prospective consumers after the receipt of Test report should be given within the time specified below: (i) Large Industrial Supply and Tubewell consumers 3 months (ii) Medium and Small Industrial Power Supply 2 months (iii) Domestic and Commercial consumers 1 month

It may, however, be pointed out that the period specified above is the maximum and that normally it should be possible to give connections in very much shorter periods. 3. In view of the time limits specified above, it should be ensured that the demand notices are issued carefully taking all the circumstances viz. availability of funds and materials, etc. into consideration".

If the above instructions do not relate to the Board, it is desirable that it also issues such instructions. The officers of the Board sitting in comfortable offices should realise the condition of a fanner who is made to incurhuge expenses, on receipt of demand notice, in the Hope of energising his tubewell and them has to wait Br several years for the electric connection.

A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Chandigarh and to the Chairman, Haryana State Electricity Board, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, Ambala District (Haryana).