M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD vs MOTILAL RAI

THIS is an appeal by the M.P. Electricity Board and two others challenging the order of the District Forum, Sehore granting relief to the respondent complainant.

THE complainant is a resident of the Municipal area, Sehore. An electric connection has been granted to him by the M.P. Electricity Board. THE grievance of the complainant is that though he is a resident of the municipal area of Sehore, electric connection granted to him is through a feeder which also caters to the needs of the rural area. According to the complainant in the rural area power cut for a larger time is enforced than the power cut in the urban area. Because of this, electric connections in the municipal area of Sehore which are connected to feeders wholly catering to the urban population get electricity for a larger time than the complainant on whom the power cut applicable to the rural area is enforced. THE complainant has claimed relief of a direction either to supply him electricity for the period equivalent to the other consumers of the urban area on the same feeder or his feeder be changed and supply be granted through wholly urban feeder. THE M.P. Electricity Board has opposed the prayer on the ground that it is not possible to have an entirely urban feeder because the electricity supply has not been arranged on the basis of urban or rural consumers and it is not possible to change the feeder of the complainant. The District Forum has passed an order directing the M.P. Electricity Board to supply electricity to the complainant in accordance with supply for the urban area and if it is necessary to change electric line for this purpose, that be done within a month. The change of line is directed to be at the expense of the complainant to the extent of Rs. 500/-. Rest of the amount had to be borne by the M.P. Electricity Board.

We have heard the learned Counsel and have perused the papers placed before us by both the parties. The District Forum obviously has not addressed itself to the main question in all the cases as to what is the deficiency in service proved by the complainant. There is nothing on record to show that the M.P. Electricity Board had assured a 24 hours supply of electricity or to supply equal quantity of electricity to all its consumers. The electric supply has to be routed through different feeders. The complainant''s connection is from a particular feeder. It is not the case that there is some deliberate mischief on the part of the M.P. Electricity Board in choosing a particular feeder for the complainant. The problem seems to have arisen because of enforcement of power cuts in the rural area. It is only an accident that complainant''s electric connection is through a feeder on which power cut for a longer time has to be enforced. This cannot be called a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent made a new grievance before us that the respondent has to suffer doubly because power cuts are being twice enforced on the feeder through which the respondent is supplied electricity. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent the electricity supply on the feeder is with held at the time when there is a power cut in the rural area as also when there is a power cut in the urban area. THEre is no basis for this allegation in the record. Shri Vijay Gupta learned Counsel for the appellant clearly gave an assurance before us that on the concerned feeder power cut applicable to the rural area only is enforced and the power cut applicable to urban area is not enforced. In our opinion, that should set the matter at rest. THEre shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.