INDRABHAN vs ASSTT. ENGINEER, GRAMIN VIDHYUT SAHAKARI SAMITI

THIS is an appeal by a complainant against the dismissal of his complaint. The appellants had filed a complaint against Assistant Engineer, Rural Electrical Cooperative Society Limited complaining about the delay in giving him electric connection.

THE complaint, in short, was that Complainant''s father late Kaluram Patel was the original owner of certain lands. Late Kaluram Patel had applied for an electric connection and deposited on 24.8.1988 Rs. 1,136/- as security. THE respondent erected poles for supply of electricity in May 1989 but connection was not granted. In the meanwhile, in October 1989 Kaluran Patel died. According to the complianant the wires were not being drawn on the poles and he has therefore suffered. He claimed compensation on various counts totalling to Rs. 97,426/-. The non-applicant/respondent state din their reply that because of some dispute created by one Rameshwar Prasad Bajpai, it was not possible to supply electricity as over head wires could not be taken from the land of Rameshwar Prasad to the tube well of the complainant. It was also alleged that the matter was reported to the police. The respondent further contended that earlier Kaluram and Indrabhan himself had filed complaints which were dismissed by the Forum and, therefore, this fresh complaint cannot be entertained. The District Forum found that there was no deficiency in service as despite best efforts on the part of the respondents because of obstruction created by some other person, electricity lines could not be laid. The Forum therefore dismissed the complaint.

We have heard both the sides and have perused the record. In our opinion, there is no force in the appeal. First of all the view taken by the Forum cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable. If for reasons beyond the control of the respondents they could not supply - Electricity, there would be no question of deficiency in service. Our attention was also invited to cases decided by State Commissions in M. Ahmed-ul-Haq v. Assistant Engineer K.E.B. Chamarajanagar & Ors., II (1991) CPJ 455 and Chairman Kerala Electricity Board &. Ors. v. V. Bhargavi, II (1991) CPJ 733. Since, we have already held that no deficiency in service is involved in the present case, we would keep the question as to whether by paying registration fees and security deposit for getting an electric connection, a person would become consumer or not.

THE appeal has no force. It is dismissed. THEre shall however be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.