HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD-/Opp. Party vs SANJAY GUPTA

FIRST Appeal Nos. 198 and 207 of 1992 are directed against the same order of the District Forum, Jind. Thereby the complainant-consumer has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,000/- only against the Haryana State Electricity Board. The learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that this order will govern both these appeals.

MR. Sanjay Gupta, proprietor of M/s. Surya Plastics, Jind owns a factory premises at Narwana powered with electricity supplied by the Haryana State Electricity Board. On the 21st of March, 1991, Shri R.N. Jindal, A.E.E. (M&P) with the accompanying staff checked the electricity meter of the said factory and thereafter informed the complainant that the same was in perfect order. However, he directed the complainant to meet him at his residence at Narwana on that very evening which the latter failed to do. Thereafter, Shri Jindal on the 30th of that very month again visited the factory premises and after checking declared that the electricity meter was running grossly slow to the extent of 44 per cent with the result that the complainant would have to pay as much as a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the department as arrears with effect from April, 1990 upto the date when the meter was changed. Inevitably, this caused a serious shock to the complainant and apprehending further penal action if he continued the factory, he closed the same and consequently suffered great mental agony and harassment. The complainant thereafter sought Redressal at the hands of Executive Engineer Mr. Rana at Bhiwani but the latter apparently under the influence or in support of his subordinates refused to take any action. However, his further protestations to the Superintending Engineer Mr. Bhatia met with success and he directed a re-checking of the meter. This was done on 9th April, 1991 but again it was declared that the same was slow to the extent of 12.5% resulting subsequently to the imposition of a penalty to the tune of Rs. 8502.73 paise. The complainant however, sought an arbitration of the dispute which was referred to the sole arbitration of the Superintending Engineer of the department. The award of the arbitrator went entirely in favour of the complainant and the penalty imposed was set-aside. Aggrieved by the hostile action of the Haryana Electricity Board employees, the complainant knocked at the door of the District Forum and sought compensation to the overall tune of Rs. 60,000/- for financial loss and also on account of harassment and mental tension etc.

On notice being issued, the departmental authorities naturally took up the plea that the allegations against the officials of the Board are mala fide and baseless. It was the plea that the provisional checking by Shri Jindal had revealed that the meter was not accurate and this subsequently stood confirmed when the re-checking was done on the 9th April, 1991. It disclosed that the same was running slow to the extent of 12.5%. An objection to the jurisdiction of the District Forum to take cognizance of the dispute was also raised.

THE District Forum overruled the jurisdictional objection and relying primarily on the award of the arbitrator dated 28th February, 1992, it allowed the complaint and assessed the compensation at the level mentioned at the very out-set. Mr. K.K. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the appellant-HSEB in First Appeal No. 198 of 1992 was somewhat at a loss to challenge the considered findings of the District Forum. The solitary argument raised was that it had leaned too heavily on the award of the arbitrator and it was the plea that the District Forum should have applied an independent mind and came to a conclusion on the basis of evidence and material before it. According to the learned Counsel, the finding was vitiated by the unreserved acceptance of the award of the arbitrator in the departmental proceedings.

THE aforesaid submission is only to be noticed and rejected. It is not in dispute that in the agreement for the supply of electricity a prominent stipulation is that any dispute arisen therein would be referred to an arbitrator. In the present case, it is common ground that resort was made to this very agreed provision for seeking an arbitration. However, what is significant is the fact that the sole arbitrator in this case was no other than the Superintending Engineer of the appellant-Board himself. THE authenticity of the award referred and proved on the record is not the matter of any challenge. THE relevant part of the award given by Shri R.D. Adhlakha, Superintending Engineer, H.S.E.B. on the 28th February, 1992 deserves notice in extenso:- "After going through both the checking reports conducted by the M&P Organisation, oral/written documents filed and evidence adduced by the parties it is decided that alleged amount of Rs. 8502.73 paise is not chargeable from the petitioner as the checking conducted by Shri R.N. Jindal, AEE M&P on 21.3.91 is fictitious one as is apparent on the face of record since he has made cutting in the report and inserted certain words after thought. THE 2nd checking carried out on 9.4.91 cannot also be relied upon keeping in view the difference of percentages of different readings shown by the checking party of M&P Wing & huge difference of slowness of the same meter recorded by M&P staff during their two checkings."

A plain reading of the aforesaid findings would give the lie direct to the appellant-department''s case. It is clear therefrom that the arbitratorSuperintending Engineer of the appellant-department himself has came to the categoric finding that the checking conducted by Shri R.N. Jindal, AEE (M&P) was not only fictitious one but also as is evident from the cuttings in the report the insertion of certain words was an afterthought. It would appear that the aforesaid award has not been challenged by either of the parties and has thus become binding inter se. In this context, the contention of Mr. Gupta that this award should be altogether ignored and should not have been relied upon by the District Forum appears to us as an argument of desperation only. No other argument was raised on behalf of the appellant-Board and therefore, First Appeal No. 198 of 1992 has consequently to be dismissed. In First Appeal No. 207 of 1992, the sketchy grounds raise a fresh claim of enhancement to the tune of Rs. 60,000/-. The District Forum in terms recorded as under:-, "Of course, there is no positive and concrete evidence to support the contention of CONSUMER that he had suffered special damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- on account of closure of his business but there is certainly legitimacy in the plea raised by him that had suffered a pecuniary loss on account of closure of business."

In view of the aforesaid finding which could not be seriously assailed there is no evidence worth the name to sustain the tall claim of as much as Rs. 60,000/-, for the alleged financial loss and the compensation for harassment and mental tension. Consequently the very foundation for further enhancement is lacking in the present case. The District Forum has considered the matter and arrived at a quantum of compensation which does not merit any interference. This appeal also must fail and is dismissed. Both the parties are however, left to bear their own costs. Appeals dismissed.