Negi Ram vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board

BY this complaint, the complainant has claimed damages of Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also in addition compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment and agony.

THE short relevant facts set out in the complaint are that with a view to set up an industry under the name and style of M/s. Ravi Plastics, the complainant took loan from the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation and purchased machinery for setting up such industry at Chirgaon. THE complainant also approached the H.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite party) for sanctioning of requisite load of electricity required for running the industry and installation of transformer. After the requisite load having been sanctioned by the opposite party, the complainant applied for a separate 100 K.V.A. Transformer and he deposited an amount of Rs. 64,345/- by way of Bank Draft No. 925062 dated 7.3.1989 payable at UCO Bank, Chirgaon, under Receipt No. 310772 in response to the directions of the opposite party for depositing such an amount for the purpose of installation of Transformer. THE site for installation of such Transformer was also inspected by the concerned Authorities of the opposite party and the complainant was given to understand that the Transformer shall be installed very shortly, but till now, no Transformer has been installed and as such the electricity could not be provided to the industry of the complainant. As a result of such an inaction and gross negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has suffered huge losses in terms of non-use of the machinery purchased for setting up the industry and by way of loss of income which he would have earned through such industry and also the interest which he has to pay to the H.P. Financial Corporation and as such has claimed the aforementioned amount. The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party on the ground that the complaint is time-barred, as the case relates to the year 1989. No doubt, according to the opposite party, the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 64,345/- in pursuance of their directions for installation of Transformer, but the installation of Transformer was subject to certain conditions including that the complainant was required to submit Test report of the installation of the industry through authorised wiring Contractor, which has not been done. After the money having been deposited by the complainant, 100 K.V.A. Transformer was booked by the opposite party during the year 1989, but the same could not be installed, as the site was not made available by the complainant and that the conditions for installation of Transformer were not complied with. The Transformer could not be installed due to lapse and negligence on the part of the complainant himself. In fact, in substance, the stand taken by the opposite party is that the Test report - a pre-requisite for releasing electricity connection was not furnished by the complainant and as such the Transformer could not be provided for the industry of the complainant.

The matter came up for hearing on 25.6.1999 and the matter was argued at length by both Mr. Rajeev Sood, learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the opposite party.

MR. Rajeev Sood, Counsel for the complainant submits that the opposite party was legally duty bound to install the Transformer once he has deposited an amount of Rs. 64,345/- in pursuance of the directions of the opposite party and which has nothing to do with the Test Report required for giving electric connection to the electrical fittings of the opposite party. He further stated that he has suffered huge losses on account of non-use of the machinery purchased by him and loss of income which he would have earned by setting up such an industry and after depositing the entire amount for installation of Transformer, the complainant is clearly entitled to compensation. The Counsel for the complainant has next contended that the complaint has been filed within time, as he has been approaching the Authorities of the opposite party-Electricity Board by personally visiting them, through oral requests by writing letters as well as by serving legal notice dated 6.8.1996 (Annexure A-5) for installation of transformer. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Gupta, Counsel for the opposite party has strongly contended that no doubt the complainant has deposited the aforementioned amount in pursuance of the directions of the opposite party for the installation of Transformer, but the complainant was required to submit the requisite Test Report of a recognised wiring Contractor before giving electricity connection to the industry, which was never done and as such the Transformer was not installed, although it was purchased by the opposite party and, therefore, there is no question of deficiency of service on their part and further the case is hopelessly time- barred, as the matter relates to the year 1989.

IT is not necessary to decide the contentions raised by both the parties, as in our opinion, the case can be decided in view of the offer made by the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 64,345/- deposited by the complainant, of course, without interest, as would be discussed hereinafter. On 12.5.1999, this Commission ordered that the matter requires to be discussed and settled between the parties. It appears that the matter has been discussed by the opposite party and during the course of arguments on 25.6.1999, when the matter was heard, Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel under the instructions of his client, stated that the opposite party is ready to refund the amount of Rs. 64,345/- to the complainant without interest. After hearing the matter, the judgment was reserved. However, this Commission directed the Counsel for the opposite party that he should seek instructions from his client whether or not the respondent- Electricity Board is ready to refund the amount deposited by the complainant on account of installation of Transformer alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of issue of notice dated 6.8.1996 till the amount is actually paid and the matter was ordered to be put up on 29.6.1999. The matter was again put up on 29.6.1999 and a letter has been received from the Chief Engineer (Operation) South, HPSEB, whereby the opposite party has decided not to agree to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant. The question that requires consideration is whether the complainant should be paid interest on the amount of Rs. 64,345/- and at what rate.

IT is well settled that the Commission can always award interest on delayed refund of amount if the ends of justice, equity and fair play so require. We may notice that the complainant has issued a notice to the opposite party on 6.8.1996 for refund of the amount alongwith interest and also pay damages on account of loss suffered by him. Infact, he has seriously and in the right earnest taken up the matter with the opposite party on 6.8.1996 and in our opinion, he is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 6.8.1996 i.e. from the date of issue of notice, till the amount is actually paid in full and final settlement of the claim. This is also acceptable to Mr. Rajeev Sood, Counsel for the complainant.

IN the light of what is discussed above, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 64,345/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of notice dated 6.8.1996 till the amount is actually paid within four weeks. IN case, the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the opposite party shall invite action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no order as to costs. Complaint partly allowed.