NEW PUNJAB COLD STORAGE vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

NEW Punjab Cold Storage, District Faridkot through its partner Makhan Singh claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,60,000/- from Punjab State Electricity Board and its employees for the deficiency and negligent act in not allowing electric connection when the complainant had fulfilled all necessary formalities. The partners of the complainant firm are under-graduate youth and were unemployed. Under a project to start business of cold storage, they took loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs at the interest rate of 16.33% p.a. Simultaneously the complainant applied for electric connection to opposite party No. 2 Asstt. Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Baja Khana, Distt. Faridkot on deposit of Rs. 38,250/- on August 12, 1997. Although demand notice was required to be issued within four weeks, the same was issued late on April 5,1997. In this manner, this delay disrupted the entire sequence of work of the cold storage. On receipt of verbal sanction of the loan from the bank, he deposited Rs. 73,500/- as service charges to the Electricity Board on February 3,1998. Earlier he could not deposit the same amount as there was no certainty of the sanctioning of the loan. An undertaking was furnished to opposite party No. 2 by Makhan Singh, partner of the firm to start erection work for releasing connection. The opposite party started the work of installation of electric poles but in March, 1998, the work was stopped without any cogent reason. A representation was made by the complainant on April 3,1998. The work was re-started on September 15,1998 but stopped after a day. No further action was taken by the opposite parties in the matter of granting the electric connection, hence the complaint was filed in October, 1998. Reply was filed on behalf of the opposite parties, inter-alia, raising preliminary objections regarding competency of the complainant to file the complaint. The complainant was stated to be not a consumer as defined. Electricity connection was sought for commercial purposes. Before the connection was granted, the applicant could not be treated as a consumer. The claim was exaggerated. On merits, details were given how the delay occurred. Primary reason given was a letter from the Forest Department raising objection to the cutting of the trees for laying the electricity line and the other explanation offered was that the transformer was not made available. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents. The complainant produced the entire correspondence. He also filed replication. Extract from Punjab State Electricity Board Sales Manual was also produced. Following questions require consideration in this case : 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2(l)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act entitled to file the complaint ? 2. Whether there is deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Electricity Board in delaying the grant of electric connection ? 3. To how much compensation, if any, the complainant is entitled to on account of negligent act of the Electricity Board in not promptly granting the electric connection and Relief. 4. Relief.

Question No. 1

THIS question is covered by judicial decisions and hence does not require detailed discussion. In Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787, it was held that the Consumer Protection Act is applicable to semi-Government Bodies rendering services. The National Commission in Manju Singh Chauhan v. M.P. Electricity Board & Anr., I (1992) CPJ 73 (NC), held that the corporate bodies like the State Electricity Board render services under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act and the sale of electricity is for consideration and supply of electricity on continuing basis over a period of time against payment, therefore, is hiring of services under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Electricity Board tried to distinguish the aforesaid judgment on the ground that it is only after connection is given that the complainant should be treated as a consumer but this contention again cannot be accepted. State Commission, Madras in Alacrity Foundation Limited v. The Tamilnadu Electricity Board), I (1993) CPJ 383=I (1993) CPR 194, held the complainant to be a consumer. In that case, there was delay in providing the electricity connection. THIS Commission has also taken up similar view in several cases. The Electricity Board being a semi-Government Body having monopoly in the matter of supplying electricity to the consumers is supposed to distribute electricity connections to be allotted and the prospective applicants would be potential consumers entitled to invoke jurisdiction of the FORA. The question is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. Question No. 2 The fact cannot be lost sight of that the complainant applied for the electricity connection in August, 1997 and such a connection was given on December 29,1998 after filing of the present complaint. The question for consideration is as to whether the delay has been satisfactorily explained or it occurred on account of arbitrary action of the officials of the Electricity Board. The first point raised by Counsel for the complainant was that there was delay in issuing the demand notice which as per instruction No. 12 was required to be issued within four weeks of deposit of the initial amount. In the present case, such amount of Rs. 73,500/- was deposited on February 3, 1998 whereas the demand notice was issued on April 5, 1997 (Annexure H). In our considered view, on account of this delay, it cannot be said that the complainant has suffered any loss as subsequently when he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 73,500/-, he delayed the payment by several months. It was sought to be explained by the complainant that such amount was to be arranged. Be that as it may, since there was delay on the part of the complainant also, the entire burden cannot be laid on the shoulders of the Electricity Board. It has been argued on behalf of the Electricity Board that an objection was raised on behalf of the Forest Department in respect of cutting of the trees to allow the Electricity Board to raise the poles and lay the lines. Such a letter is Annexure R-2. It may be observed that inspite of the aforesaid letter and without any further clarification from the Forest Department, the Electricity Board of its own succeeded in erecting the poles and the lines and ultimately granted the electric connection. Even otherwise no relevant provisions of the Forest Act and the rules framed thereunder were brought to our notice which debarred the work to be done under the Electricity Act by its employees. This lame excuse appears to have been put forth by the Electricity Board to explain the delay which is not just and cogent. The other ground taken up by the Electricity Board is non- availability of the transformer. There does not appear to be cogent material on the record to justify the same. It was in April, 1998 when all stocks were requisitioned from the stores and were obtained. Requisition for transformer was also made on April 25, 1998. No material has been produced about non-availability of the transformer in the stores and if it was not available, the same could not be procured as per rules. The allegations were being levelled by the complainant that the officials of the Electricity Board wanted illegal gratification to give the connection. Apart from the statement of the complainant, there is no other material to support him in this respect. However, the allegation as a whole cannot be ruled out when no material has been produced by the Electricity Board as to why the electric connection could not be granted promptly after deposit of Rs. 73,500/- by the complainant. It took almost 10 months i.e. on February 10,1998 that the connection was given and that too after the complainant had filed the present complaint. The deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Electricity Board is, thus, established. Question No. 3

This is an important question. The complainant claims compensation on the basis that if cold storage had been started, he would have gained rentals for the goods to be stored and since he was deprived of the same, compensation should be assessed on the basis of rentals for the goods keeping in view the capacity of the cold storage. In our view compensation cannot be fixed on speculations. In such like matters, compensation on estimation can only be fixed. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- is considered just compensation in this case. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is allowed with the direction to the Electricity Board to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as costs within one month from receipt of copy of this order. Complaint allowed.