NEW PUNJAB COLD STORAGE vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS complaint pertains to the delay of ten months in giving electric connection to the complainant''s cold storage by the Punjab State Electricity Board.

THE case in brief is that the partners of the complainant''s firm M/s. New Punjab Cold Storage were under-graduates and were unemployed. To start a business of cold storage they obtained a loan of Rs. 30 lakh at 16.33% per annum from the Oriental Bank of Commerce. THEy had applied for electric connection to the concerned officer of the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter be referred as Board) simultaneously. THE Board issued demand notice on 5.4.1997 and the complainant deposited Rs. 73,500 as service charges to the Electricity Board on 3.2.1998. Though the Electricity Board started the work of installation of electric poles, suddenly they stopped the same in March 1998. THE work was re-started from 15.9.1998 but was again stopped for a day. Ultimately, the power connection was given on 29.12.1998 after filing the complaint before the State Commission. The Board submitted that the delay was basically due to two reasons- (a) they had to obtain the clearance from the Forest Department for cutting the trees to enable the Board to raise the poles and lay lines; and (b) non-availability of the transformer in the store of the Board.

The State Commission after hearing the parties granted a compensation of Rs. 10,000 along with Rs. 2,000 as costs.

DURING the hearing of the case by us the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the awarded amount has already been paid to the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has sought enhancement of compensation as delay was on the part of the Board which was resulted in huge loss due to non-starting of the project. Further the appellant has lost the whole season of business and they should be compensated as per the prayer made by them before the State Commission. Findings: The dates mentioned earlier by us are not disputed. The Board has produced a copy of the letter dated 15.4.1998 addressed by the Block Forest Officer, Jaitu to the SDO, Board stating that action may be taken for cutting the trees only after taking permission from the Forest Zonal Officer, hence, the Board is not at fault. The Assistant Engineer of the Board also wrote to the partners of the appellant firm about the several letters written by him to his higher authorities for allotting a transformer. While these contentions of the Board cannot be disputed we cannot ignore the Commercial Circular No. 2/97/99 issued by the Director, Sales of the Board which has laid down a time for grant of electric connection. The relevant portion is reproduced below: After the compliance of demand notice, the connection to various categories of prospective consumers should be given within the time schedule specified below- (i) Large Industrial Power Supply and Bulk Supply above 10 KW 3 months (ii) Medium Industrial Power Supply and Bulk Supply upto 100 KW

2 months

IN view of the above, the local officer of the Board should not have issued the demand notice before getting the permission from the Forest Department for cutting the trees and also confirming from the higher authorities about the availability of the transformer. There has been a delay on the part of the appellant in depositing the amount after receipt of demand notice. There has been a delay on the part of the respondent in providing electric connection after the deposit of the requisite amount by the appellant. While there is some case for enhancement of compensation we cannot totally ignore the following conclusions: 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. Accordingly, we modify the order of the State Commission and award Rs. 20,000 as compensation in lieu of Rs. 10,000 awarded by the State Commission. Rest of the order remains undisturbed. Ordered accordingly.