HEALTH CARE AND RESEARCH CENTRE vs C.E.S.C.

THIS is an appeal filed against the order passed by the District Forum on 7.7.2003. The appellant was the complainant before the Forum whereas the respondent was the O.P. The brief facts of the case are as under: The complainant applied for a new 35 K.W. electric connection on 11.5.2001 to the O.P. that is C.E.S.C. The O.P. held an inspection by its engineers on 6.6.2001 and following the inspection, an M.A. bill dated 12.9.2001 for Rs. 1,59,460/- was raised which was paid in full by the complainant on 18.9.2001. Thereafter despite several requests the O.P. did not instal the meter and finding no other remedy the complainant filed a case before the Forum. The O.P. contested the case at the Forum by raising some minor technical points such as one Dr. Ashok Binayaka made the application for the new connection and not the complainant namely Health Care and Research Centre. It was also argued by the O.P. that an M.P. case of 1993 was pending against the complainant and as such the supply could not be provided. The Forum found both the points raised by the O.P. as not tenable. It concluded that Mr. Ashok Binayaka made the application for new meter not in his personal capacity but on behalf of the complainant. The Forum further observed that the delay caused by the O.P. on the plea of a pending M.P. case had got no merit whatsoever. The Forum came to the conclusion that the O.P. having accepted money was duty-bound to provide electricity and the same having not been done, it must be held guilty of deficiency in service under the C.P. Act. Taking this view of the matter the Forum allowed the case with a cost of Rs. 500/- and compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. The O.Ps. were directed to provide new connection to the complainant within a month from the date of the order. It was further stated by the Forum in the order that the cost and compensation as awarded might be adjusted in the bills to be raised in future.

BEING dissatisfied with the above order the complainant has come in appeal before the Commission mainly on the ground that the compensation and cost awarded by the Forum were utterly inadequate. The complainant has argued that he had deposited Rs. 1,59,460/-, with the C.E.S.C. On 18.9.2001 whereas he got the connection as late as on 11.10.2003. In view of this the complainant has contended that he has suffered loss of interest on the above amount and he should be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above amount for the period from 18.9.2001 to 11.10.2003, the latter being the date of installation of the meter. The appellant has further reiterated his claim for Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation for the delay in providing electric connection to the nursing home and also for the fact that sophisticated instruments installed by him for the nursing home at a huge cost remained idle in the absence of electric connection. The appellant also alleged harassment and mental agony suffered by him for the in ordinate delay in giving the connection. The appellant further stated that the O.P. failed to comply with the Forum''s order within the prescribed period and the electricity connection was given only on 11.10.2003 after the present appeal was filed. During the hearing the learned Advocate for the respondent did not make any new point and reiterated the points taken by the O.P. at the Forum which, as we have already observed, were found by the Forum, to be not tenable at all. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been produced by the respondent in support of his so called objections to giving connection. Therefore, in this regard we are in full agreement with the view of the Forum that the objections raised by the O.P. in giving connection had no merit at all.

Now coming to the question of compensation we find that the Forum awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- only apart from a cost of Rs. 500/-. The Forum did not explain the basis on which it arrived at the above figure of Rs. 2,000/-. Reverting to the arguments of the appellant we find some substance in his contention that he suffered loss of interest on the sum of Rs. 1,59,460/- for a period of about 2 years. While he has claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in our opinion a rate of 10% per annum will be more appropriate taking into account the market rates prevalent during the relevant period. Moreover, the period for which the appellant should be entitled to interest should not be counted from the date of depositing the amount. We make an allowance of a period of about 3 months from the date of the deposit for taking necessary steps by the C.E.S.C. to provide the connection. Accordingly in our view the appellant is entitled to interest for the period from 18.12.2001 to 11.10.2003. In regard to his claim for compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- no documentary evidence has been produced by the appellant in support of This claim and hence we are not inclined to allow this compensation.

IN view of the foregoing discussion we deem it appropriate to pass the following order. The appeal is allowed in part on contest and the impugned order of the Forum is modified as discussed above. The respondent will pay as compensation to the complainant interest @ 10% per annum on Rs. 1,59,460/-, that is the amount paid by the appellant, for the period from 18.12.2001 to the date of giving connection that is 11.10.2003. However, in case C.E.S.C. has already allowed some interest on the above amount on its own, the same will be adjusted from the amount of interest to be paid as ordered above. The cost of Rs. 500/- as awarded by the Forum is affirmed. Both the compensation and cost as ordered above may be adjusted in the bills to be raised by the respondent in future. The appeal is thus disposed of. However, in the circumstances we do not pass any order as to cost. Appeal partly allowed.