PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Bhagwan Dass

IT is an appeal against the order dated 27.3.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had applied for 3 BHP electricity connection for tubewell under S.P. (Small Power) Scheme on 19.6.1990 and had deposited Rs. 530/- as security. The complainant had approached the appellant-O.Ps. a number of times but nobody listened to his request. Tubewell electricity connection has not been provided to him even now. The complainant in his complaint had sought a direction from the District Forum to provide electricity connection for the tubewell and demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for mental agony and loss due to negligence of the O.Ps. The O.Ps. appeared and filed the written statement contesting the complaint and stated therein that the complainant had applied to the O.Ps. for 3 BHP electricity connection for tubewell under S.P. (Small Power) Scheme. It was stated in the reply that issuance of demand notice under this scheme was discontinued by the P.S.E.B. vide Circular No. 44/90. dated 21.8.1990. It was decided to keep such applications pending and, therefore, the application of the complainant was kept pending till now.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties the District Forum allowed the complaint with a direction of the O.Ps. either to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the gross negligence on its part or to release the electricity connection for the tubewell. Hence this appeal.

WE have heard the Counsel for the appellant and the respondent who is present in person. Admittedly, the complainant had applied for the tubewell connection on 19.6.1990 but he has not been provided the tubewell connection till today. Cause stated by the O.Ps. for not providing the tubewell connection to the complainant is that vide a Circular No. 44/90, dated 21.8.1990, it was decided to keep the application of the complainant pending and it was still pending. O.Ps. received the application of the complainant along with a sum of Rs. 530/- as security but they have kept his application pending for such a long period of about more than 12 years. If the O.Ps. did not want to give the electricity connection to the complainant they could have denied the offer within a reasonable period of time. It was not done so. The complainant was not even informed that his application was kept pending and he was not to be given the tubewell connection. This delay caused by the O.Ps. itself is a negligent act on their part and it amounts to deficiency in service. District Forum has also rightly held that it was the duty of the O.Ps. to ask the complainant to take refund of the security if the electricity connection was not to be provided to him. But, admittedly, they did not inform the complainant about the same. WE thus find no fault with the order of the District Forum. This appeal is, thus, dismissed with costs which are quantified as Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed.