PANCHANBHAI SHANKARBHAI vs GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE complainant is an agriculturist and he is occupant of an agricultural land at village Rustamgadh in Dasada taluka of Surendranagar District. THE Gujarat Electricity Board (Board for short), the opponent herein published a scheme for giving electric supply to farmers and the scheme was called 100% electric supply scheme. It is the case of the complainant that he desired to have electric supply for drawing water from the tube well which he proposed to dig in his land. He, therefore, made application for electric connection under the aforesaid scheme and paid fees of Rs. 100/- on September 16,1992.

THE complainant, received from the Board an estimate for giving electric connection on February 10,1993. THE total cost for electric connection was estimated at Rs. 1,07,005/-. THE complainant paid Rs. 1,07,005/- on March 9,1993. THEreafter about 30 farmers were given electric connection. THE complainant approached the Board and its officers several times for getting connection but without any success. THE complainant also gave notice to the Board for giving him electric supply or connection. In February 1994 the Board informed the complainant that on making of payment of Rs. 20/- the electric connection would be provided. THE complainant, therefore, paid further sum of Rs. 20/- on February 3,1994. However, the complainant was not given electric connection. It is the case of the complainant that he wanted to raise jeera crop in his land by irrigating his land by drawing water from the tube well by a motor pump. THE complainant, however, could not irrigate his land because electric connection was not given to him. He has, thus, suffered loss of Rs. 10,05,000/- due to failure on the part of the Board in giving him electric supply. THE complainant claimed that in addition he is also entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, mental torture and agony and cost of Rs. 5.000/- from the Board. THE complainant has, therefore, filed this complaint for recovery of Rs. 10,60,000/- from the Board. The Board has filed written statement resisting the complaint. It is not disputed that the complainant has applied for electric connection and paid Rs. 1,07,005/- on March 9,1993. The Board had however denied that they are guilty of any negligence or deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant in not giving electric connection. It is submitted that 100% electric supply was very much for the benefit of the farmers and under the scheme the farmer who applied for the electric supply was required to bear 100% costs for giving such supply. It was because the farmer who applied had to bear the entire cost that it was called 100% electric supply scheme. It is submitted that 44 farmers had applied for the electric supply under the said scheme and out of them 30 farmers were already given electric connection. The name of the complainant was at serial number 42 of the list of farmers who had applied for electric connection under the said scheme and the electric connection was given on the basis of availability of electric energy and materials. No farmer or agriculturist was given connection out of turn. The complainant was not given electric connection because of technical difficulties and because his turn had not come. Under the circumstances, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Board and the complainant was not entitled to claim any compensation as claimed in the complaint. The Board has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The Board has not been able to give electric connection to the complainant till this complaint was taken up for hearing on March 21, 1996. It may be recalled that the complainant applied for electric connection on September 16, 1992 and paid Rs. 1,07,005/- as per the estimate given by the Board on March 9,1993. The Board had given the estimate of Rs. 1,07,005/- on February 10,1993. If the Board was not ready to give electric connection on account of technical difficulties, we are unable to understand as to why it called upon the complainant to pay Rs. 1,07,005/-. The Board should have called upon the complainant to deposit the aforesaid amount only when it was in a position to give electric connection. Rs. 1,07,005/- is not a small sum and the Board could not have asked the complainant to pay this amount unless the Board was ready to give electric connection to him. The deficiency in service would not arise only on account of giving electric connection out of turn as sought to be contended on behalf of the Board. Deficiency in service in the instant case can be attributed to the Board because it demanded and recovered Rs. 1,07,005/- when it was not in a position to give electric connection to him. If the Board had some technical difficulty or it did not have sufficient material to give electric connection to the complainant, it should not have called upon him to make payment of the aforesaid amount of which the estimate was given by itself. In our opinion, therefore, the Board is guilty of deficiency of service by not giving electric connection to the complainant within reasonable time after receiving the estimated amount from him. In our opinion, the Board is, therefore, liable to pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the said amount recovered from the complainant till the connection is given to the complainant.

WE are, however, unable to see as to how the complainant can claim compensation on the ground that he was not able to raise jeera crop in the land. It may be that the complainant had planned to raise jeera crop on his land by drawing water from tube well with the help of a motor which was to be run by the energy supplied by the Board. But so far as Board is concerned, it is not material as to what use the complainant was going to make of the energy supplied to him. In other words, even assuming that the complainant proposed to raise jeera or other crop on his land, his being unable to do so and his suffering loss on that account cannot be directly attributed to the failure on the part of the Board to supply electric energy to him. The damages which are claimed by the complainant are too remote. In our opinion, therefore, besides claiming interest on the amount which he has paid to the Board, the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation. Interest @ 15% in our opinion, would take care of whatever loss or damages the complainant has suffered. WE, therefore, reject the complainant''s claim for compensation. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed and we direct the Board to pay to the complainant interest @ 15% p.a. from the date the amount was paid by the complainant to it till the date the electric connection is given to him. The Board shall also pay to the complainant cost of Rs. l.000/-. Complaint allowed with costs.