M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Sanjay Kumar Pathak

THIS appeal has arisen from order dated 11.9.1997 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Bilaspur in Complaint No. 126/93. By their order. District Forum has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and interest thereon @ 18% from 30.7.1997 till date of payment. Appellant shall also refund Rs. 13,032/-with interest @ 18% from 27.4.1992 till payment and also pay Rs. 2,500/- as proceeding cost.

THE facts of the case briefly stated are that respondent in his complaint to the District Forum alleged that appellant had committed deficiency of service, by not providing electric supply connection to him for starting an Industry at Bilaspur, for cutting and polishing of marble and other stones, although he had submitted his application to the appellant and also furnished the licence from the Industries Department for his industrial venture and also the clearance of Municipal Authorities and Pollution Control Authorities. He further alleged that appellant assured him that electric supply would be provided to him and that he was asked to execute a deed of agreement and to deposit the security amount for which demand notice was issued on 25.4.1992. Security deposit was made on 29.4.1992. He finally alleged that he incurred large expenditure in building sheds and purchasing equipment, but could not start the Industry immediately because he was not given electric supply connection. On contacting the Ex. Engineer and Suptd. Engineer he was told that electric supply would be given after new transformer is installed. He contended that he suffered a loss of Rs. 1,92,827/-, which he prayed before District Forum, be awarded to him with 24% interest. District Forum after hearing the parties held the appellant liable for deficiency in service and passed the impugned order referred to in para 1 above.

Appellant in this appeal has challenged the order of the District Forum on the basis that findings of the District Forum are presumptions not warranted by law and hence deserve to be set aside. Appellant in his appeal has laid great emphasis on the fact that rules require a test report to be submitted before electric supply connection is given. Appellant has also stated that the presumption of the District Forum that no agreement deed could have been executed without getting a test report was wrong. They pointed out that agreement deed and depositing security money was the beginning of the procedure to give electric supply connection. Appellant has also urged that in view of past rulings of the State Commission the order of District Forum be set aside.

WE have heard the parties and we have also perused the record of the case including the detailed order of the District Forum. After perusal we are of the opinion that order of the District Forum was a well reasoned order. Appellant has stated in his appeal that respondent has failed to furnish any documentary proof to show that he had submitted the test report. They further stated that neither a copy of the test report was produced nor any receipt from appellant that a test report had been submitted. District Forum in their order have dealt with this point exhaustively in paragraphs 14 to 25. WE are in agreement with the logic and reasoning behind the findings of the District Forum. District Forum has made a very valid point that appellant being a body with a huge compliment of staff and office owes it to consumer to inform them in writing what is expected from them. A consumer can be permitted to visit the office and enquire verbally, but appellant cannot be permitted to getaway by stating that consumer was told verbally. District Forum has also mentioned that appellant failed to give a reply to the legal notice sent by respondent. Even if appellant had replied to the notice by stating that electric supply could not be given because test report has not been submitted, the long drawn litigation could have been avoided. At the same time the Court could have felt satisfied that appellant for once, informed the consumer in writing the reason for not giving electric supply. We have had occasion in the past to obscure in so many cases of M.P.E.B. that there is total lack of transparency in their day-to-day dealings with the consumers. We have also observed that M.P.E.B. officials are in the habit of behaving in an autocratic fashion. They do not behave like people working in service organisation instead they behave like regulatory body. Such lack of accountability and transparency in our opinion constitutes deficiency in service on the part of appellant. Since our observation in the past one year has not resulted in any improvement whatsoever and since there are not any signs of improvement or an effort towards it, we think a time has come when exemplary costs and compensation are the only thing likely to have any effect. Judgments quoted by District Forum in their order become very relevant and necessary in the present case. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view that appellant must be saddled with exemplary compensation.

IN the context of discussion in preceding paragraph the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.