PRITAM SINGH vs DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

THIS appeal is by Pritam Singh against the order of District Forum, Ropar dated December 10,1997 whereby direction was given to the Electricity Board while allowing the complaint to pay compensation-cum-costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant. In appeal he claims enhancement of compensation.

SINCE no appeal has been filed by Electricity Board against the impugned order, the findings recorded with respect to deficiency and negligence against Electricity Board in the matter of delay in replacing the electric meter has to be taken as correct. Thus it is not considered necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties in details. The dispute in appeal is only about the quantum of compensation to be determined for 25 days i.e. from August 1 to August 26, 1997 during which period the Electricity Board did not replace the burnt meter installed at the flour mill (Chakki) of the complainant in Village Rail Majra, District Ropar. Under Section 26 of the ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 it is the duty of the Electricity Board to provide correct electric meter at the premises of the consumers. It is also the duty of the Electricity Board to maintain such electric meter in working order. As per instructions in Circular No. 109 issued by the Electricity Board an inquiry was contemplated to find out if electric meter burnt, dead or stopped was on account of any fault or negligence on the part of the consumer, particularly in that inquiry the following matters were required to be noticed as provided under Clause 1 of the Instruction No. 109 as contained in the Sales Manual issued by the Electricity Board. It reads as under : "1. In order to avoid consumer''s complaints and to safeguard the interest of the Board as well as that thorough and detailed inquiry be made whenever a meter on the consumer''s premises is reported dead stop, damaged or burnt. Before the meter is replaced the site should be inspected by AE/AEE (DS) in each 8 case. However, ordinary cases of general meters reported deadstop by Meter Clerks and Meters Inspectors may be inspected by the J.E. II. The AE/AEE(DS)/JE-II should carry out investigation and record his report on the following lines to determine as to what extent the damage to meter is due to the default/negligence on the part of the consumer, as per provision laid down in Clause 17 of the Abridged Conditions of supply : (i) Whether the seal of M.C.B., meter terminal cover/meter cover (and of P.T. and C.T. fuses if installed) are intact. (ii) Whether there are any authorised extensions. (iii) Any outward and physical signs of damage. (iv) Any leakage of rain water into the equipment or meter. (v) Any lightning effect. (vi) Any sign of spark-over at the terminals. (vii) Any other causes."

The Electricity Board did not produce any material on the record of the District Forum that any such investigation was got done to come to the conclusion that the Electricity meter found at the premises of the complainant was burnt on account of any default or negligence on the part of the consumer in respect of the matters referred to above. That being the position, the Electricity Board was not entitled to charge either for the price of the meter or replacement thereof. In the present case the Electricity Board thus illegally charged Rs. 630/- from the complainant for replacing the meter. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to this amount.

Admittedly the complainant is running a flour mill at the premises where meter was installed. He claims compensation @ Rs. 2,000/- per day as loss suffered on account of non-availability of electricity at his mill. Apart from this assertion in the affidavit there was no other evidence produced with regard to actually income of the complainant from the aforesaid business. The complainant has appeared in person and admitted that he is not income tax assessee. Where the complainant has failed to prove actual loss suffered on account of negligent act of the opposite party as required under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, only compensation on estimation keeping in view the circumstances of the case at the most can be granted. It is in this view of the matter, we have to assess a reasonable amount of compensation which can be paid to the complainant for the loss suffered for 25 days on account of non-availability of the electricity. A sum of Rs. 100/- per day towards net income of the complainant is considered reasonable and appropriate and we grant the same. For 25 days he would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,500/-. Thus total compensation payable to the complainant would be Rs. 2,500/- plus Rs. 630/- (total Rs. 3,130/-). The complainant will also be entitled to costs of litigation of the two Courts, which are assessed at Rs. 500/-.

FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. Order of the District FORum is modified with the directions to the Electricity Board-the opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs. 3,130/- with Rs. 500/- as costs to the complainant within one month from receipt of copy of this order. Appeal allowed.