Mangi Lal vs CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN STATE ELETRICITY BOARD, JAIPUR

THIS complaint has been filed by Mangi Lal s/o Chunaji claiming a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs against the Opp. Parties. According to the complainant, he has an agricultural land bearing old Khasra No. 362 and New Khasra No. 1828 in the vicinity of village Narlai, Tehsil Desuri, Distt. Pali and there is a well on this agricultural land. On 3.8.79 the complainant had made an application for sanction of electricity connection on his well on the said agricultural land and he was assigned priority No. 37. In 17.3.1990, the Asstt. Engineer, RSEB, Desuri issued a demand letter to the complainant and in pursuance of that the complainant deposited the required amount of Rs. 1520/-on 28.3.1990. The said Asstt. Engineer on that very day issued Work Order. The complainant had also submitted the required ''L'' Form. The Asstt. Engineer issued a Service Connection Order in favour of the complainant on 31.3.1990. Despite that the Opp. Parties did not instal the electricity connection and did not supply the electricity to the complainant till the filing of the complaint. The complainant went to the office of the Electricity Deptt. at Desuri and he came to know that the electricity connection was not given to the complainant despite his having deposited the amount demanded in the demand letter because the connection had been given to another person named Mangilal s/o Sujaji on his agricultural land instead of on the agricultural land of the complainant whose name is Mangilal s/o Chunaji. It is stated that the agricultural land of Mangilal s/o Sujaji bears Khasra No. 461 and is at a great distance from the land of the complainant. Despite that the Opp. Parties wrongly gave the electricity connection to another person Mangilal s/o Sujaji instead of to the complainant. The complainant made several representations to various authorities in this regard, but the electricity connection was not supplied to him. The Complainant suffered loss for last 2 or 3 years on account of non-supply of the electricity connection as he could not irrigate his agricultural land through his well with the help of electricity. The complainant has, therefore, claimed Rs. 3,60,000/- on account of economic loss surrered by him and Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental distress and agony, in all Rs. 4 lakhs.

UPON reference being made, the Opp. Parties filed their version on 30.9.1993. In the version filed by the Opp. Parties, it was admitted that the complainant Mangilal s/o Chunaji had made an application for electricity connection on 3.8.1979 on his agricultural land and he was assigned priority No. 37. It was also admitted that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs. 1520/-which was demanded from him through a demand note. It was also admitted that Work Order and Service Connection Order had been issued. It was, however, stated that the electricity connection was given to Mangilal s/o Sujaji. It is stated that verification could not be obtained from the record as to whether actually the amount of the demand note was deposited by the complainant or by Mangilal s/o Sujaji. The Opp. Parties have stated that when the complainant made grievance in the Deptt., enquiries were initiated and letter was sent to Mangilal s/o Sujaji enquiring form him as to whether he had made application for electricity connection in the year 1979 and whether he had deposited the amount of Rs. 1520/-, but Mangilal s/o Sujaji had not appeared in the office of the Electricity Board and did not produce necessary documents. Letter was also sent to the complainant requiring him to produce the necessary documents. It is also said that from the enquiries made, it became clear that the Jr. Engineer and the Lineman entered into collusion with Mangilal s/o Sujaji and gave him the electricity connection by making changes in the record. The Department has suspended the Jr. Engineer and the Lineman and has initiated departmental enquiry. It is denied that the complainant suffered economic loss of Rs. 1,46,000/- and loss to the extent of Rs. 40,000/ on account of mental distress and agony. From the above facts, it is clear that it is not disputed on behalf of the Opp. Parties that the complainant had made an application for electricity connection to his well on the agricultural land on 3.8.1979 and he was assigned priority No. 37. It is also not disputed that a demand letter had been issued to the complainant requiring him to deposit an amount of Rs. 1520/- which the complainant deposited on 28.3.1990. It is also clear from the document produced by the Opp. Parties that a Sundry Job Order had been issued by the Asstt. Engineer, RSEB on 28.3.1990 for providing electricity poles for supply of electricity connection to the complainant. .The Service Connection Order for installing service line and necessary meter was also issued on 31.3.1990 on the well of the complainant Mangilal s/o Chunaji.

It is an admitted position that despite all this instead of supplying electricity service line on the well of the complainant, the Jr. Engineer and the Lineman of the RSEB provided the electricity connection and service line on a different person named Mangilal S/ o Sujaji in whose favour no service order had been issued. The complainant made grievance and complaint to the authorities of the RSEB. Certain letters were issued by the Executive Engineer, RSEB, Phalna to the complainant requiring him to produce necessary documents. In one of the letter dated 24/25.9.1991 the complainant was required to produce the demand note and the receipt regarding deposit of Rs. 1520/-. There is a letter of Asstt. Engineer of RSEB informing to the complainant that the electricity connection was wrongly given at a wrong place and the same had been disconnected. It was stated that vigilance enquiry was going on and after its result, necessary further steps for giving electricity connection to the complainant would be taken upon receipt of directions from higher authorities. As already stated, the Opp. Parties have admitted that on account of collusion between the Jr. Engineer and the Lineman with Mangilal s/o Sujaji, the electricity connection was given on his field and not on the field of the complainant. Clearly, therefore, there was malafide act of the Jr. Engineer and the Lineman of the RSEB in giving the electricity connection to a different person who had neither applied for connection and had not deposited the amount demanded in the demand note. Admittedly, the electricity connection was not given to the complainant on his field despite the fact that the complainant had complied with all the formalities and a Service Connection Order had also been issued in his favour. There was thus deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties and they are liable to compensate.

AS to the quantum of compensation, it is clear that the Service Connection Order had been issued in favour of the complainant on 31.3.1990 and the present complaint was filed on 7.1.1993. The complainant has not produced the revenue record in order to show the area of the agricultural land held by him and the crop which is generally sown on the land and in the complaint also the area of the agricultural land and the crop sown has not been mentioned. Thus the complainant has not established the actual economic loss sustained by him. The damages can only be determined on the basis of relevant evidence which has not been adduced by the complainant. The complainant is, therefore, entitled only to a token compensation. Having regard to the fact that the electricity connection has not been given to the complainant for about 2 years, the Opp. Parties should compensate by Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant. AS the electricity connection was wrongly given to another person Mangilal s/o Sujaji by collusion between the Jr. Engineer and the Lineman of the Opp. Parties, the Opp. Parties will be entitled to cover this compensation amount from the defaulting officials of the RSEB. We, therefore, partly allow this complaint and direct the Opp. Parties to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for gross deficiency in service. The Opp. Parties will be at liberty to recover this amount of compensation from their own defaulting employees who are found to be responsible for the malafide and wrongly act in giving the electricity connection to a different person in place of the complainant. Complaint partly allowed.