MOHAN LAL vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS appeal has arisen from order dated 29.12.1995 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (For short District Forum), Gwalior in Complaint Case No. 482/1994, by which the complaint was rejected.

THE facts of the case briefly stated are that appellant had a permanent electric supply connection No. 285310 from 1986. Due to thunder storm on the night of 10.6.1994 a tree standing near the house of appellant fell down, thus breaking the wire bringing electric supply to his house. Appellant himself requested to disconnect supply to avoid accident. However, appellant requested the respondent to resume the electric supply from next day 11.6.1994 and sent several applications thereafter. Failing to have the electric supply resumed, he filed a complaint in District Forum and prayed for Rs. 10,000/- compensation for mental agony, and proceeding costs Rs. 800/- and other expenses incurred by him. In their reply in the Forum, the respondents have stated that they were ready to resume the electric supply but appellant''s neighbour did not allow the line to be taken above his house. They further submitted that if alternative arrangement is made by putting up a pole, expenses will be heavy, which the appellant does not want to incur. District Forum after hearing parties held that complainant/appellant is not entitled to any relief and rejected the complaint.

In the appeal, appellant has challenged the order of the District Forum on following grounds: (a) He was a permanent consumer of the respondent since 1986. He was given a permanent connection and meter and paid his bills regularly and hence he was respondent''s consumer. (b) He was not demanding any new relief or new connection but only restoration of his old connection. (c) The plea of respondent is that appellant''s neighbour does not allow the connection to be taken above his house and, therefore, they cannot give the connection. District Forum held that it would amount to tresspass. Appellant has objected to this reasoning by stating that his connection was since 1986. Obviously at that time neighbour''s house did not exist because he would have objected in 1986. Since no such record exists, obvious conclusion is that house was constructed later on. Therefore, respondents should not have allowed this construction. If they did, respondents must suffer for their inaction. (d) Respondents if they were serious about resuming electric supply could have got it done with police help. Appellant therefore prayed that inaction of the respondents for the past so many years was a clear case of deficiency in service.

WE have heard the parties and we have also perused the record and the order of the District Forum. Having perused the impugned order we are of the opinion that District Forum has failed to apply its mind to the real issue. Appellant being a permanent connection holder was entitled to restoration of electric supply which has been denied to him for the last four years. How the connection could be restored is squarely a problem to be tackled and sorted out by respondent. WE therefore do not agree with the view taken by District Forum. WE also do not agree with the view of the Forum that appellant was not entitled to any relief. From the record it is clear that respondents are guilty of deficiency in service in that they have failed to restore connection for the last four years and making the appellant pay minimum charges without electric supply. WE are convinced that for such gross negligence apathy and irresponsibility, respondents have to be saddled with exemplary compensation. Another excuse about objection put forth by neighbour is baseless. Actually, neighbour has no locus standi in the matter, because either he was not there in 1986 and if he was there, he forfeited his right, when he failed to object in 1986. In either case we consider this excuse as lame excuse of the respondent and not acceptable.

IN the context of discussion in preceding paragraph the appeal is allowed. Order dated 29.12.1995 of District Forum, Gwalior is hereby set aside. We direct the respondents to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to appellant for the mental torture undergone by him because of deficiency of service. Respondents are directed to ensure restoration of connection within one month of the date of order without any cost to the applicant. Respondents will also pay Rs. 500/- as costs of proceedings including Counsel''s fee. Respondents will bear their own costs. Appeal allowed with costs.