H.S.E.B. vs Ghanshyam Dass

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Hisar setting aside a demand of Rs. 9000/- for the alleged unauthorised extension of the electricity load by the Department raised against the complainant.

MR. Ghanshyam Dass, complainant-respondent is a co-owner of an Industrial unit at Barwala which was the recipient of the electric supply from the appellant Board since 1988. In September 1990 the complainant applied for the extension of the energy load by seeking to add 20 B.H.P. to the existing one and the concerned S.D.O forwarded the application to the Executive Engineer at Hisar. The complainant''s case is that the S.D.O. (Operation) visited his premises on the 10th of October, 1990 to apparently process and inspect the premises in connection with the said application and he found the seals and the meter reading in order which was duly recorded in his diary. The basic allegation was that the concerned S.D.O. instead of forwarding the case of the extension of the load abstructed the same and threatened the complainant. On the 14th of October, 1990 he disconnected the electric supply of the complainant unauthorised on the unwarranted ground that the load has been extended without permission and sanction. On the following day the said S .D.O. and the Executive Engineer also visited the premises and took certain photographs including one of an electric motor purchased on the 8th of October, 1990 which had been merely placed on a temporary plinth for testing purposes only. The electric supply of the complainant was however, restored on the 18th of October, 1990, but was again disconnected on the 3rd of November, 1990 and restored thereafter. Inter-alia a demand of Rs. 9000/- was raised against the complainant in an illegal manner for the alleged unauthorised consumption of electricity for a period of six months. The appellants in their counter version took up certain preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the District Forum which were not at all pressed before us and, therefore, do not deserve notice now.

On merits, it was conceded that the complainant had applied for the sanction of the additional load, but it could not be accepted due to certain defects and completion of formalities and was perhaps ultimately sanctioned later in December, 1990. It was the stand that the already sanctioned load of the complainant was of 20 BHP, but on 14th of October, 1990 at the time of checking, it was found to be double the same and was thus unauthorised and consequently the eletric supply was disconnected. However, on the 18th of October, 1990 the complainant gave a writing on the basis of which the electric supply was restored and subsequently the demand of Rs. 9000/- in consonence with unauthorised extension of load was rightly claimed against him.

THE complainant in his replication reiterated his allegations and in particular emphasised the fact that his assertion in Para 6 of the complaint that he had been given the electric connection through the 25 MM cable which cannot possibly take up the load of 40 BHP has not been expressly denied and this fact can be verified from the records. The District Forum on the basis of evidence on record found that undisputedly the complainant had been earlier sanctioned a load of 20 BHP and a Kirloskar motor of the said horse power was already installed in his factory. He had bonafide applied for the extension of the load and purchased a new Crompton motor only on 8th of October, 1990 and subsequently placed it on a temporary plinth for testing purposes. It held that the complainant had not concealed any thing whatsoever and the appellant Department instead of processing his application for extension had raided the premises and disconnected the electric supply on the unwarranted assumption of unauthorised extension of load. The clear finding was that the new electric motor was purchased only on the 8th of October, 1990 and was merely being tested on a temporary plinth in pursuance of the application for the extension of load and consequently the levy of Rs. 9000/- for alleged abstraction of electric supply for six months was wholly unauthorised.

MR. Hemant Gupta, the learned Counsel for the appellant had ably presented their case, but has been unable to dislodge the impecable findings of the District Forum. It was first sought to be contended that in fact the Crompton motor 20 BHP had been in unauthorised use for well-nigh three years since 1988 and had been purchased at that time. It was submitted that the purchase documents of this motor were spurious and not on the letter head of any authorised firm. The submission of the learned Counsel is not borne out by the record and has been apparently made under some misapprehension. Annexure ''C'' on the record is the bill/cash memo with regard to the purchase of the CROMPTON MOTOR. This bill is in proper printed form of M/s. Rajdhani Electric Company, Mandi Road, Hisar and bears regular Serial Number, date and all other particulars including the horse power RPM, the brand and the price of Rs. 11,000/- for the same. Indeed the contention of Mr. Hemant Gupta seems to be an after-thought because at no stage before the District Forum any serious challenge was laid to the authenticity of this bill either in the pleadings of the appellant or in the arguments in the Forum below. The finding of the District Forum that the disputed Crompton motor was purchased on the 8th of October, 1990 duly supported by authentic documentary evidence has necessarily to be affirmed. Once it is held as above, the very foundation of the argument on behalf of the appellant in a way crumbles to the ground. The primal stand was that the second motor had been unauthorisedly used for long and once it is held that the same had been freshly purchased on the 8th of October, 1990, it gives the lie-direct to the appellant''s case of abstraction of electricity.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant had then attempted to place reliance on the photographs taken on behalf of the appellant on the 15th of October, 1990. It was sought to be contended that these indicated that the second electric motor stood installed and in use. We are unable to agree, as the close perusal of these photographs would indicate and indeed butteress the finding of the District Forum that the new electric motor was as yet placed on a temporary make-shift plinth, apparently for testing purposes.

ON behalf of the respondent, it has been forcefully pointed out that the complainant firm had already in September, 1990 duly applied for the extension of load which application was under process by the Department. It was in pursuance of that application that a new electric motor was purchased and was being tested to complete the formalities for the grant and sanction of the extended load. The complainant had thus acted in a manner completely above board, whilst the appellant''s lower officials in some misguided zeal or for extraneous considerations had raised an unwarranted case of unauthorised use and demand against them. Yet another feature of the case is that the complainant had forcefully asserted that as a matter of record the earlier electric connection was given through 25mm cable which cannot possibly bear the load of 40 BHP motors. This was asserted categorically in Para No. 6 of the complaint. But the reply of the Department to the same was wholly ambiguous. On these premises it was rightly and forcefully argued that on the existing cable connection the alleged extended unauthorised load could not infact have operated.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to find merit in this appeal and affirming the order of the District Forum, dismiss the same hereby. There will however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.