RAM MURTI GUPTA, A.E., RSEB vs TARA RAM

THIS appeal has been filed by Asstt. Engineer (Rural) RSEB, Jhunjunu and the Executive Engineer, RSEB, Jhunjunu against the order of the District Forum, Jhunjunu dated 30th June, 1993 directing them to sanction electric connection to the well of the respondent within 15 days and further to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of the loss sustained by the respondent and further a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for physical and mental agony.

FACTS leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 2nd Jan., 1993 the complainant-respondent sent a complaint by post to District Forum, Jhunjunu with the averments that he was an ex-service man and he had priority for getting electricity connection for his well in his capacity of being an ex-serviceman. On 2nd Nov., 1992 he met Shri Ram Murti Gupta, Asstt. Engineer (Rural) RSEB, Jhunjunu. Shri Gupta told the complainant that if he would pay him Rs. 15,000/- as a legal gratification, he would give electric connection to the well of the complainant. As the name of the complainant stood in priority he did not agree to pay this amount. On 26th Nov., 1992 the complainant received a demand notice for depositing security amount. On 27th Nov., 1992 complainant''s son went to Shri Ram Murti Gupta for depositing the security amount but Shri Gupta avoided the deposit and asked complainant son to come on the next day. Son of the complainant again went to Shri Gupta on 28th Nov., 1992 but'' he was informed by Shri Gupta that he was on duty at stores on that day. Again complainants'' son went on 30th Nov., 1992 to deposit the security amount. He was at that time told by Shri Gupta that the electric connection would not be given even after the deposit of the security amount. However, the amount of security deposit to the extent of Rs. 4850/- was deposited. The complainant had further alleged that after the receipt of the demand notice, he had got the electric fittings made at the well and had submitted ''L'' form on the date the security amount was deposited. He has filed photo copy of the bill under which he had purchased various electrical goods in order to make electric fittings at the well. Even after the expiry of a period of one month, electricity was not supplied to the complainant. The complainant, therefore, filed the complaint claiming Rs. 60,000/-as compensation for the reason that he was deprived of getting wheat and gram crops and further an amount of Rs 15,000/- for mental agony. On behalf of the appellants reply to the complaint was filed. Version of the Opp. Parties was that a demand notice was sent to the complainant on 24th Nov., 1992. It was denied that Shri Ram Murti Gupta had demanded any money from the complainant or his son. It was admitted that the security amount of Rs. 4,850/- was deposited on 30th Nov., 1992. It is however stated that Junior Engineer (South) had gone to inspect the site and on inspection he found that there did not exist any electric fittings and the complainant had only constructed a kotari. On account of this reason the ''L'' form submitted by the complainant was cancelled and the complainant was asked to make necessary electric fittings on the well.

The District Forum held that according to condition No. 13 of the General Conditions of Supply, it was necessary for the Electricity Board to give notice to the complainant with regard to the date and time on which electricity fittings at the well were to be inspected in order to verify that the fittings had been made according to ''L'' form. However, no notice had been given to the complainant. The District Forum also found that on 15th Dec, 1992 on account No. 78-A-41 had also been allotted to the complainant. The Forum believe the version of the complainant that electricity fittings had been duly made at the well and the action of the Asstt. Engineer in cancelling the ''L'' form was not proper. The District Forum relied upon the affidavits filed on behalf of the complainant. As owing to supply of electricity, the complainant was deprived from sowing and getting crops of wheat and gram, it was held that he was entitled to get compensation to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. On the basis of these findings the District Forum passed the order appealed against to the effect that in case electric connection was not sanctioned and given to the complainant within 15 days, the appellants would pay damages to the complainant @ Rs. 100/- per day. Apart from that the District Forum also awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the loss already sustained by the complainant on account of not sowing and harvesting the crop of wheat and gram. Further an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded in respect of physical and mental agony.

IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that ''L'' form should be submitted only when the fittings had been made by the contractor on the site. The ''L'' form submitted by the complainant contained the signature of Wire Man Mohd. Ramzan and that of Murari Lal as supervisor. However, in his affidavit the complainant has said that the fitting was made on 25th Nov., 1992 to Bahadur Singh and Daddaram. Thus there was material contradiction with regard to the persons who made the electric fittings at the well. IT was next urged that in the complaint the complainant has stated that he had received the demand notice for security on 26th Nov., 1992. However, the electric goods as for making fittings were stated to have been purchased on 24th Nov., 1992 and the fittings were said to have been made on 25th Nov., 1992 i.e.even before the receipt of the notice of demand for security. From the side of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board the Jr. Engineer had inspected the site and he made a report to the effect that there was only a Kotri at the site. Main switch, starter and motor were not installed and earthing was also not made. On account of these reasons the ''L'' form sent by the complainant was rejected. On the basis of above submissions it was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the District Forum was wrong in holding that the electric fittings had been made when ''L'' form was submitted by the complainant. The learned Counsel for the respondent supported the order of the District Forum. I have given due consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties. In his affidavit the respondent has stated that he had brought the board manufactured from Bhadarmal alias Bahadur Singh of village Murota on 25th Nov., 1992. As regards the fittings he had deposed in his affidavit that the same was made by the Budhram Mali on 26th Nov., 1992. The ''L'' form submitted by the complainant goes to show that it was signed by Mohd. Ramzan as Wire Man. Mr. Murari Lal signed it as contractor. Best persons to prove are Mohd. Ramzan and Murari Lal but the complainant did not file any affidavits of these persons to prove that they had made the fittings at the site of the well contrary to the contents of ''L'' form, the complainant-respondent has deposed in his affidavit that the fittings were made by Budhram Mali. In such circumstances there was no reason to disbelieve the report of the Jr. Engineer, RSEB to have gone at the site and had made a clear report that except a kotari, there did not exist any fittings. It might be that there is nothing to show that prior notice was given to the complainant-respondent before the Jr. Engineer inspected the site. But in the present case the complainant has contracted himself by wrongly naming the persons who made the fittings. The complainant has went to the extent of submitting before the District Forum a fabricated document in the shape of an electricity bill which does not contain any particulars. It appears that the bill was prepared by obtaining a blank form of bills from the office of Asstt. Engineer, RSEB. It is true that the electricity connection was sanctioned in favour of the respondent and he was required to make deposit of the security amount. It is also true that he had deposited the security amount of Rs. 4850/- on 30th Nov., 1992 but that alone was not sufficient for the supply of electricity by the appellants. It was also necessary for the respondent to make electric fittings in the well in accordance with the requirements of the conditions of supply. That having not been done, it could not be held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The District Forum was wrong in granting the reliefs already mentioned above to the respondent.

THE appeal is therefore allowed, the order of the District Forum, Jhunjunu dated 30th June, 1993 is set aside and the complaint filed by Tara Ram complainant-respondent is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.