Kushal Singh vs RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE complainant, Shri Kushal Singh has filed this complaint under Sec. 2 read with Sec.17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) praying that the opposite parties may be directed to release electric connection in his favour as early as possible and also a direction for payment of Rs. 5,50,000/- for mental suffering and financial loss. This complaint was filed before the State Commission on 23.8.1990. Facts leading to this complaint briefly put are these : -

THE complainant applied for electric connection for taking water from the wall in connection with cultivation, to the A.E.N., Tiwari on 23.6.1979. He deposited Rs. 10/- vide receipt No. 76 Book No. 8739. After about 10 or 15 days he went to the office and the Clerk told him that when he receives the demand notice he should come to the office and not before that. THE complainant went several times for enquiry but he was told the same thing; also that it is not necessary to come earlier. On 31.3.1990 he went to the office of S.E., Jodhpur and submitted an application whereupon he was told that complainant has been sent for enquiry. It has been alleged that on account of not releasing the electric connection in his favour, he has been put to substantial loss as he could not cultivate his land. THE complaint was filed for the reliefs mentioned herein-above. The complainant submitted photo stat copy of Cash receipt dated 23.6.1979 and copy of the letter.

The opposite parties submitted version of the case opposing the complaint on 17.1.1991. The main defence taken was that on 20.12.1979 a demand note for Rs. 1600/- was sent to the complainant. As he did not deposit the amount the papers were filed. To use the words in the version of the case "uske jama naheen karwane ke karan phail 14.1.90 ko radd ki gai." Learned Counsel for the opposite parties submits that this date has been mentioned by mistake. Learned Counsel submits that the priority was cancelled on 19.1.1980. But that is not very material. The claim for compensation was also denied. The complainant submitted his affidavit dated 15.6.1991. In support of the complaint. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted photo stat copies in regard to the demand notice etc.

WE .heard the complainant in person and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties. The complainant deposited Rs. 10/- on 23.6.1979. Demand notice was issued on 20.12.1979 to him for depositing Rs. 1600/-. The complainant did not deposit the amount. His case is that he has gone to the office of A.E.N, many times, but he was told that he should come after the receipt of the demand notice. The notice was sent under postal certificate to the complainant as is evident from the photo stat copy submitted today. The complainant seems to have taken no steps until he has filed the complaint before the State Commission on 23.8.1990. It is clear from the papers submitted today that the priority of the complainant was cancelled on 19.1.1980 though in the version of the case the date mentioned is 14.1.1990. The remedy of the complaint against the opposite parties has become time barred long before the filing of the complaint. It is merely a stale claim inasmuch as the priority of the complainant was cancelled on January 19, 1980. It is settled by the National Commission that if the claim of the complainant had become time barred under the Limitation Act he is precluded to pursue his remedy by filing a complaint under the Act. Besides this, the relief that electric connection in favour of the complainant cannot be granted by the State Commission under Sec. 14(1) read with Sec. 18 of the Act. It has been ruled by the National Commission that a Redressal Forum constituted under the Act can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated in Sec.14(1) of the Act and not beyond that. The relief for the grant of electric connection in favour of the complaint, thus, cannot be granted by the State Commission. So far as compensation is concerned that flows from that and as stated above, the claim of the complainant had become barred by time long before the institution of the complaint. On the grounds stated above, the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

THE complaint is ''dismissed without any order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.