MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, (O And M DIVISION), WARDHA vs K.L. RAMANI

THIS is a revision petition against the order of 4th November, 1992 of the State Commission of Maharashtra in Appeal No. 272 of 1991. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of Revision Petitioner namely the Maharashtra State Electricity Board.

BEFORE we go into the facts of this case we wish to point out that the order of the State Commission is a non-speaking order merely stating that there was no substance in the appeal and therefore the same was dismissed. There is no mention of the points raised in the appeal nor any statement of the reasons for dismissing the appeal. This is of importance because unless there is a speaking order the revision petitioner is handicapped in submitting his revision petition to the revisional authority against such an order. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act praying for grant of electric connection. For this purpose the respondent-complainant had filed an application in the prescribed form with the concerned office of the appellant MSEB Wardha but the latter took no action for giving electric supply. When he failed to get the power connection even after meeting the officers of the petitioner Electricity Board, he instituted a complaint before the District Forum. It was contended by the revision petitioner Electricity Board that the application form for grant of connection was not properly filled and therefore there was delay. The respondent-complainant had also not furnished evidence of his ownership rights as the premises belonged to his father. The deficiencies in the application were said to have been conveyed to the complainant in phone.

After hearing the parties the District Forum came to the conclusion that it was the duty of the officials of the M.S.E.B. to give guidance to the respondent-complainant to remove the deficiencies and lacunae found in the application form. It also observed that when the complainant had made an application in October, 1990 but no action had been taken thereon till October, 1991 when the District Forum passed the order. About the ownership rights it is stated in the order of the District Forum that the respondent-complainant had produced the consent letter of his mother but this was also not considered. The District Forum was constrained to observe that objections were raised from time to time and were "nothing but an intention to cause delay without any excuse and to earn more money by illegal means". It further observed that the officers of the Board Shri Joshi and Deshpandey showed inexcusable negligence and dereliction in performance of their duties and that the departmental enquiry should be held against them for their misconduct. The District Forum further ordered departmental enquiry should be completed within six months from the date of its order. It further directed that the revision petitioner-Electricity Board should give new electric connection of 3 phase 5 H.P. to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of order and pay compensation of Rs. 1500/- for the loss caused to the complainant. It also threatened action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act if its directions were not carried out.

IT was this order of the District Forum which was confirmed by the State Commission by a non-speaking order. From a perusal of the order of District Forum we have no doubt that there was delay and harassment of the respondent-complainant in getting connection from the State Electricity Board. We also agree with the observations of the District Forum that it was the duty of the officers of the Electricity Board to have communicated to the respondent-complainant the deficiencies in his application and that the plea this was done on telephone is to say the least, suspect. A telephonic communication of the shortcomings in application can always give scope for controversy as to what was conveyed and what was done to rectify the deficiencies. We also agree with the observations that the officers of the Electricity Board sat on the application for unduly long time. However, the basic question is whether the failure to grant electric connection to an applicant who had not filed a proper application for connection constitutes deficiency in service? In opinion the answer has to be in the negative.

WE, therefore, hold that the case did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. It was also beyond the competence of the District Forum to direct an enquity to be held against the officers of the State Electricity Board and that 3 phase 5 H.P. connection be given to the respondent-complainant. In view of the above we set aside the order of the State Commission and the District Forum as having been passed beyond their jurisdiction. There is no order as to costs.

BEFORE we part with this order we feel it our duty to draw the attention of the revision petitioner-Maharashtra State Electricity Board to the harassment suffered by the potential consumers who apply for grant of electric connection. The observations made by the District Forum regarding the failure of the officers of the Electricity Board in informing promptly the applicant about the deficiencies in his application and the considerable delay in dealing the application are justified and should receive the attention of the M.S.E.B. so that they can take suitable steps to prevent a recurrence of such lapses in their dealings with the applications for power connection. Order accordingly.