PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs HARI RAM

THIS appeal is by the Punjab State Electricity Board, challenging order of District Forum, Sangrur dated September 18, 1996 wherein direction was given to the Board to refund a sum of Rs. 6,850/- with 18% p.a. interest along with Rs. 4,000/- compensation for causing harassment and a sum of Rs. 500/- litigation expenses to Hari Ram, the complainant.

HARI Ram being a consumer of electricity Account No. 18377 applied for electric connection for 3 B.H.P. for the purpose of irrigation on July 3,1990 along with a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the Board. He was to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,850/- as connection charges for the wire, which was stated to be @ Rs.50/- per metre. It was on May 25,1994 that the connection was provided from a distance of only 40 metres from the line. The complainant was over charged and he wanted refund of Rs. 9,000/- for which application was moved on September 19,1994. Thereafter in October, 1994, legal notice was issued and ultimately the complaint was filed. The Board contested the complaint. However, broad facts were amputated. Stand was taken that when Rs. 10,850/- were got deposited, on receipt of the test report, effort was made to grant the connection from HT line. However, in the meantime, work of improvement of LD system started and the transformer became under-loaded that the complainant was sanctioned connection there from. It was denied that there was inordinate delay in granting the connection. Reference was made to Circular No. 59 of 1994 that no amount was refundable. HARI Ram filed his own affidavit; Annexure C1and documents Annexures C2 to C11. On the other hand, the opposite parties relied upon the documents Annexures R1 to R7. But no affidavit on behalf of the opposite party was filed. On the material aforesaid, the impugned order was passed. The fact that Rs. 6,850/- is due to the complainant as per demands made by officers of the Board in different letters produced by the complainant is not in dispute. Thus, it is not considered necessary as to whether the demand made was against the instructions issued by the Board or not, more so, when no appeal has been filed by the complainant.

The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of circular Annexure A2 attached with the Grounds of Appeal, which is of August 22,1996, no refund of any amount to the consumer is permissible as per Circular No. 59/ 1994, copy of which was earlier produced before the District Forum as Annexure R2. There is no force in this contention. A close perusal of Annexure R2 would show that where the applicant for the grant of electric connection fails to comply with the demand notice then he is not entitled to refund of any amount deposited with his application etc. Present is not a case which would be covered by such instructions as there is no question of non-compliance of any demand raised by the Electricity Board against the complainant. The contention is, therefore, repelled. When initially a sum of Rs. 10,850/- was got deposited from the complainant, the connection was to be given from a different line but it was subsequently when the existing nearby transformer became under-loaded, the Board decided to give connection there from to the complainant, which is hardly at a distance of 40 metres from the premises of the complainant. Obviously the demand was to be reduced and the excess amount charged was to be refunded for which the local officials had recommended to the higher officers of the Board for making the payment to the complainant. However, the matter remained pending and was not disposed of. Deficiency in service is established.

GRANT of 18% p.a. interest on the amount found due is usually considered reasonable and just compensation for the loss if any suffered or on account of mental tension or harassment. The complainant cannot be doubly compensated, one by allowing 18% p.a. interest and a separate amount consolidated. The District Forum in the present case thus was not justified in allowing a sum of Rs. 4,000/- in addition to the grant of 18% p.a. interest on the amount of Rs. 6,850/-. To that extent, order of the District Forum deserves to be modified. Before parting with the judgment, a legal question debated by Counsel for the appellant deserves to be noticed to be rejected. The contention raised was that the complainant could not be treated as a consumer as defined under the Act. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of this Commission in "Mukhtiar Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others" decided on October 10,1996. The ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot be applied to the case in hand. That was a case where one Mukhtiar Singh had applied for electricity connection and had approached the District Forum for refund of the amount deposited without there being any connection granted. It was in these terms that it was held that he could not be treated as a consumer being a prospective applicant only. Reliance was placed on the decision of the National Commission in "Tata Timken v. Consumer Protection Council" II (1995) CPJ 164 (NC) and in "Sumitra Madhukar Arsekar v. The Chairman, Goa Housing Board & Anr." II (1995) CPJ 194 (NC). As already stated above, present is a case where connection has been granted and the complainant obviously falls in the category of consumer.

FOR the reasons recorded, this appeal is partly allowed. Order of the District FORum is modified. The Electricity Board would pay the amount of Rs. 6,850/- with 18% p.a. interest thereon as ordered by the District FORum along with costs as ordered by the District FORum. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.