PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATIALA vs NEW PAL TEXTILES

PETITIONERS were opposite parties before the District Forum. On a complaint filed by the first respondent alleging deficiency in service on the ground that its electric connection was wrongly disconnected by the petitioner on 30. 7. 1996 which remained disconnected till 7. 8. 1996. District Forum by its order dated 31. 1. 1997 awarded to the complainant Rs. 20,000 as composite compensation on account of inconvenience harassment, loss of business and mental agony. A sum of Rs. 1,500 was also awarded by way of costs. Further direction was that the Chairman of the petitioner shall hold inquiry and shall take suitable action against the erring officers by making deduction from their monthly salary. Petitioners and the first respondent-complainant filed appeals before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum. State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioners but allowed that of the complainant. A further direction was made that the complainant would be entitled refund of Rs. 9,600 (Rs. 8,400 + Rs. 1,200) along with interest @ 18% per annum for the period from the date of deposit till realisation. A further sum of Rs. 1,000 was also awarded to the complainant by way of cost.

RESPONDENT No. 2 has since been deleted from the array of the respondents, he being not a necessary party. Aggrieved, now the petitioner-opposite parties have filed this petition. Complainant was the tenant of one Kuldip Singh and was using the premises as showroom. It is alleged that Kuldip Singh wanted to evict the complainant and he colluded with the officers of the Electricity Board in getting the disconnection of the electricity when there were no arrears.

Stand of the petitioners has been that sanctioned load to the premises was 3. 7 KWs and it was found on surprise inspection on 7. 5. 1996 that complainant was having load of more than 10 KWs and the excessive load was 6. 62 KWs. A notice was issued to Kuldip Singh on 24. 5. 1996 for disconnection of the electric connection as the bill for excessive amount for the excessive load amounting to Rs. 8,400 had not been paid. There is a dispute as to when dis-connection took place. While the petitioner says it was on 30. 7. 1996 according to the respondent it was earlier to that date. However admittedly the amount of Rs. 8,400 was deposited on 27. 7. 1996. But since the disconnection was permanent till reconnection charges of Rs. 1,200 paid the electric connection could not have been restored.

IT will appear that a suit for eviction had been filed by Kuldip Singh against the complainant in the Civil Court at Kharar, District Ropar which was pending since 1994. Petitioner Electricity Board was not a party in that suit. However, complainant on 1. 8. 1996 filed an application in that suit seeking restoration of its electricity. No notice of such an application was given to the Electricity Board. However, by order dated 6. 8. 1996 learned Civil Judge who was trying the matter, observed that such an application was not maintainable yet he held that in the interest of justice electric connection No. UT 41/169-Y was liable to be restored since the complainant had paid up-to-date charges to the Electricity Board. It was, therefore, ordered that aforesaid connection be restored subject to the condition that complainant will not use more than the sanctioned load and if in future complainant was found using excessive load than the sanctioned load then the Electricity Board i. e. the petitioners would be at liberty to disconnect this connection. The amount of Rs. 1,200 as reconnection charges was deposited by the complainant on 6. 8. 1996 and on the following day i. e. 7. 8. 1996 electric connection was restored. Going back to the date of surprise checking i. e. 7. 5. 1996 it would be seen that a report was prepared in the name of Kuldip Singh who was owner of the premises and was having the electric connection meter No. UT-1194. Calculations have been given on the sheet prepared at that time as to how much load was there and how the charges of Rs. 8,400 were arrived at. There is an endorsement on this sheet that the ''consumer'' refused to sign this report. It would be then seen that notice dated 24. 5. 1996 was addressed to Kuldip Singh and he was informed of the inspection made on 7. 5. 1996 and the excessive load found and the amount of Rs. 8,400 due on that account. Complainant sent reply to this notice on 1. 7. 1996 as it would be seen that copy of the notice was given by Kuldip Singh to the complainant who was his tenant. In this again reference has been made to meter UT-41/1194-Y and it is stated that electricity bills were being regularly paid by the complainant and bill issued for Rs. 8,400 dated 24. 6. 1996 was not correct. It is also alleged that this was perhaps done in connivance with Kuldip Singh who wanted the complainant to be evicted from the premises.

AFTER the electric connection was restored complainant approached District Forum complaining deficiency in service as his electric connection remained disconnected for about eight days. It was on that account that District Forum allowed the complaint and State Commission gave further relief as mentioned above. Before us it is contended by the complainant-respondent No. 1 that in fact whole premise of the petitioner is wrong inasmuch as his meter No. is UT 41/1194-Y and not UT 41/1694-Y which in fact belonged to other part of the premises of Kuldip Singh and of which meter petitioners would have made the report. We think this argument is quit misleading and perhaps State Commission was also misled on that account. In the report dated 7. 5. 1996 it is UT-1194. Notice of the petitioners to Kuldip Singh also refers to same number and in the reply again by the complainant it is the same number. In the order of the Civil Court which we have referred to above, though the number is 1694-Y but it appears to us it is a typographical error. If what the complainant says is correct then his electric connection would not have been restored under the order of the Civil Court as the order did not pertain to meter No. 1194 and it pertained to meter No. 1694.

THEN the question was raised as to who refused to sign the report dated 7. 5. 1996 whether it was Kuldip Singh or it was the complainant. The case of the petitioners was in the alternative either it was Kuldip Singh or his tenant i. e. the complainant. State Commission did not act on this argument and observed that it could not be assumed that it was the tenant who refused to sign and that it would have been specifically mentioned in the report about the person refusing to sign.

WE are of the view that the whole case has not been examined in its proper perspective. There had to be clear finding as to the deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Board. There is a report of surprise inspection prepared on 7. 5. 1996 giving particulars of the excessive load and the amount to be charged therefor, refusal to sign on the report, notice to Kuldip Singh, the owner, reply thereto by the tenant-complainant, order of the Civil Court for restoration of electric connection, payment of bill amount and, payment of reconnection charges. Court cannot proceed on the presumption that it is always officer of the department who is at fault. Since compensation has been awarded by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission with a direction that inquiry be held against erring officials of the petitioners, we are of the view that matter should be examined afresh by the District Forum after giving opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence if any, and then to arrive at a decision in accordance with law. Accordingly orders of the District Forum and the State Commission are set aside, matter is remanded to the District Forum. Parties to appear there on 26th February, 2002. There shall be no order as to costs. R. P. allowed.