S And R ENGINEERING WORKS vs U.P.State Electricity Board

THE complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. He has also prayed for return of Rs. 9,854.82 and an amount of Rs. 31,500/-.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant entered into partnership for manufacture and fabrication of grill and shutter etc. He applied for financial assistance from U.P. Financial Corporation who sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,47,000/- for construction of building and purchase of plant and machinery etc. A total amount of Rs. 2,33,000/- was raised as capital including the financial assistance given by U.P. Financial Corporation. THE claimant thereafter purchased plant and machinery and constructed the building for carrying on manufacture and fabrication work. In order to start his business the complainant applied for electric connection of 10 Horse Power load. By letter dated 27.4.1991 the opposite party No. 2, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division directed the complainant for depositing Rs. 9,854.82 as expenses and security for giving the connection. A copy of this letter is Annexure 1. The claimant deposited this amount. The poles required for supplying electricity were fixed by the opposite party No. 2 but since then till today the electricity has not been given to the complainant. The loan was sanctioned on 30.8.1991 and from September, 1992 the claimant was issued bills for payment of electricity dues. One bill was amounting to Rs. 564.30. The other bills for the subsequent months were also received by the complainant. The photo-copies of these are Annexures-2 and 3. It is alleged that the complainant was not getting any electricity but inspite of these the bills were raised against him. According to the complainant the payment upto September, 1992 and other bills are liable to be waived as no electricity required to run the machinery was available. The complainant represented to the opposite party by letter dated 31.3.1992, 25.1.1992, 28.1.1992, 4.4.1992, 14.8.1992, copy of which are Annexures-4 to 8. The opposite party in pursuance of letters written by him waived the amount of the bill raised in September, 1992 and charged only a sum of Rs. 564.30 as charges of light and fans. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party.

It is alleged that the complainant suffered from the very beginning from running his engineering workshop causing total collapse and loss of lakhs of rupees which he has suffered. The complainant had to pay interest to the U.P. Financial Corporation on the amount taken on loan from it. U.P. Financial Corporation has demanded the amount of loan by writing various letters. According to the complainant on account of these acts of the oposite parties the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 1,60,000/- and he had to pay to the mechanic, car etc. employed by him.

IN the written statement the opposite parties denied various allegations of the complaint and admitted that the connection of the complainant was started by giving full load electricity supply on 30.8.1991. It is also alleged that the bills were provisionally waived off but the reasons are different. It is further alleged that the complainant could not start his business on account of non-cooperation of U.P. Financial Corporation as they were not able to start the industrial production and requested for disconnection of their power load and only requested for billing them for light and fan. It is further alleged that there was some voltage problems, but there is no fault or deliberate fault of U.P.S.E.B. It is further alleged that as a matter of fact theft of electricity and illegal use of excess load etc. often caused burden on the power supply which often results in voltage variation. On the directions of the Executive Engineer this defect was removed by the staff of the opposite parties. The complainant is taking undue advantage of sympathetic attitude of the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the complainant has cooked up this false story in order to get compensation from the U.P.S.E.B. It is also apparent from the complaint itself that the complainant does not want to have the electric connection and that is why he has made a request for refund of estimated amount deposited by him. It is further alleged that the estimated amount cannot be refunded because that is spent for giving connection to the parties.

IN the replication it is alleged that the poles for the connection were erected in the month of August, 1991 but neither power connection was ever given nor any meter etc. was installed in the premises of the complainant. It is alleged that it is false to say that the complainant was not interested in the electrical connection but the fact remains that the voltage was so low that even if the connection was released it would have been useless for the complainant''s use as it is evident from the report of S.D.O. dated 21.9.1992. It is the duty of the opposite party to supply adequate voltage in the line and in order to remove this defect a transformer should be put on the line. The working capital of Rs. 74,000/- was sanctioned by the U.P. Financial Corporatrion but the complainant did not take this working capital on account of the fact that the electrical energy was not supplied to him. It is also alleged that one Ram Samuj Gupta was also given a connection whose factory is just in front of the factory of the complainant but due to voltage problem it could not run. Prior to the complainant''s application for electric energy the said Ram Samuj Gupta approached the U.P.S.E.B. for improvement of voltage problem as a result whereof, the department erected the High Tension line upto his unit and installed one transformer and provided connection to him from the said transformer, but thereafter for the reasons best known to U.P.S.E.B. this transformer was carried away by the employees of the opposite party but the H.T. line is still there. The complainant was not given electric connection from this line after installation of the transformer. It is further alleged that there are more than 22 poles in between the transformer and the complainant''s unit which is clearly in violation of the opposite party''s rules and circulars. The parties filed evidence in support of their respective contentions. We have perused the file and heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that on account of low voltage the complainant could not run his factory inspite of the fact that the loan was sanctioned by the U.P. Financial Corporation and he constructed the building and purchased machinery and installed them. According to learned Counsel several attempts were made by the complainant to pursuade the opposite parties for giving him voltage at required pressure. In support of his case he has placed reliance on various letters which the complainant has written to the opposite parties. Copies of these letters are on record. Few of them may be perused. The first letter is dated 31.3.1992, copy of which is Annexure 4. Letter dated 25.11.1992, copy of which is attached with the complaint, is Annexure 5. Letter dated 28.1.1992, copy of which is Annexure 6, letter dated 4.4.1992, which is Annexure 7, and letter dated 14.8.1992, copy of which is Annexure 8, are on record. A perusal of these letters go to show that the complainant was continuously writing to the opposite parties that the voltage at his end is not sufficient in pressure to run the machinery on account of which his work is suffering. Annexure 9 is copy of letter dated 21.9.1992 from the S.D.O., Electric Distribution Division to the Superintending Engineer, Electric Distribution Division, Azamgarh. In this letter it has been written that with reference to letter dated 31.8.2002 it is to inform that on account of a long line at the premises of the complainant, low voltage is being supplied to him. On this a note has been made on 24.9.1992 by A.E. (R) to get his arrears of I.P. waived and ask S.D.O. to improve voltage to such an extent so as to run the motor for running his factory. Thereafter there is a report dated 20.10.1992 written to HBC I for necessary action as desired by the Executive Engineer. It also says to write to S.D.O. to check the poles and report the voltage drop calculations and details of installation and use of process since date of connection, and to ensure proper supply to the complainant''s premises. Thereafter there is a direction to one Ram Avtar for doing the needful. Thereafter there is another report which says that a bill of Rs. 26,058.60 has been received from 30.8.1991 to 9th September, 1992. This may be reduced to Rs. 564.30 for the same period on account of light and fans. There is also a noting in it that the voltage etc. should be checked and proper supply should be ensured.

THUS this shows that at the tail-end the electricity supply was not at the required pressure but was quite low on account of which the motor of the complainant was not working. In the replication the complainant has alleged that in front of his factory, there is another industry in which a high tension line was provided by the Electricity Department but the transformer which was kept on the high tension line was removed by the employees of the Electricity Department. That transformer could have also supplied electricity to his factory. According to him the H.T. line is still existing. This fact has not been rebutted by the Electricity Department. It is also alleged in the replication that 22 poles are erected in between the transformer and the factory of the complainant. According to the calculations given by the complainant the voltage at the end place where the factory is situated will be very much low even according to the standard calculations adopted by the Electricity Department. This clearly goes to show that the complainant could have been supplied electricity from the high tension line which has laid down for supply of electricity to the factory of another person which was in front of the factory of the complainant.

IN para 9 of the reply to the replication, it has been alleged by the opposite party that it is a technical statement that due to the long line there was a lowering in the voltage. Technically all the consumers on any electric line get the same quantity of voltage irrespective of their placement and distance from the point of supply. This assertion of the opposite party is not correct. Opposite party itself has used the word "technical" which shows that factually this statement is not correct. A number of theories are technically correct but when they are put to test, they do not stand the test and become false, or deviated from the technical side. This assertion is also proved false from the assertion in para 9 of the written statement. IN that written statement, it is alleged that it is true that there was some voltage problem but there was no false or deliberate fault from the side of U.P.S.E.B. As a matter of fact, theft of electricity and illegal use of excess load etc. often cause burden on power supply which often results in low voltage or variation. This statement of the opposite party is clearly in contradiction to the technical aspect described by the opposite party in its written statement. The practical side of the picture is correctly painted in para 9 of the written statement by the opposite party. It is a fact that theft of electricity is a common incidence on account of which the genuine customers suffer. It is also a commonly known fact that the consumers consume excess load than the load sanctioned to them but the genuine consumers cannot be allowed to suffer on this count. It is the duty of the Electricity Board in which it has utterly failed to check the theft of the power supply and also to see that the factories who have got a connection of a particular load does not consume power of excess of the sanctioned load. Thus the evidence on record clearly goes to show that the complainant was not getting electricity at the required pressure to run the motor on account of which the factory of the complainant could not work. Thus we find that the complainant has been able to prove his case that the voltage at the factory end was very low on account of which the motor could not run.

The next argument of the learned Counsel for the opposite party is that the electricity connection has been disconnected on 7.5.1993 but the complainant has not prayed for regular supply of electricity. No doubt it is correct that the complainant has not prayed for regular supply of electricity. It is for the complainant to decide whether he wants to have re-connection done or not. The complainant has already suffered a lot on account of the high-handedness of the Electricity Department. It might have prompted him to close down the factory and not to seek re-connection. Therefore, non-seeking of re-connection will not in any way affect the case of the complainant.

THE next question which arises is as to what amount of damages the complainant is entitled on the facts of the case. THE complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. THE complainant has alleged in para 25 of the complaint that he has employed two mechanics in the factory from the month of October, 1991 till the date and has to pay them Rs. 1,000/- per month and Rs. 700/- per month and has also employed one Guard from the month of October, 1990 and is paying him at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. Thus the complainant has claimed that he was paying Rs. 2,100/- per month for three employees but he has not been able to earn a single paisa till the date of complaint which comes to Rs. 31,500/-. THE complainant has not given any evidence in support to prove its case. THE complainant should have filed the affidavit of the persons who were employed by him and should have also filed copies of the papers through which he made payment to these persons. As no evidence is forthcoming for the alleged expenses done by the complainant, the complainant is not at all entitled to claim this amount even if he has spent the amount as alleged by him. Unless the expenses are proved they cannot be allowed. For want of proof the complainant''s request for grant of this much amount is refused. Similarly in para 24 of the complaint, the complainant has alleged that he suffered a net loss of Rs. 1,65,000/- which would have been earned by him if the opposite parties would not have illegally exploited the complainant as alleged in the complaint. The complainant has not given the details of the amount which he would have earned during the period the electricity was not supplied to him from the beginning till the date of filing of complaint. The complainant should have given a detailed account of what he could have earned after producing the material in the factory. Unless this is done the complainant cannot be allowed any compensation on this score. Thus we find that the complainant is not entitled to claim any damages as he has failed to prove the same.

THE complainant has also claimed refund of Rs. 9,854.82 p. as the amount which he paid to the Electricity Department for energising the electricity. THE learned Counsel for the opposite party/Electricity Department has alleged that the complainant is not entitled to this amount as the amount was spent on erecting the poles and laying lines upto the premises of the complainant. As has been seen in the earlier part of the judgment the complainant could not get electricity at the required pressure at his premises to run the motor. When the complainant from day one could not use the electricity supplied to him for running the factory, erecting the poles or laying the lines was useless for him and meant nothing. Had the electricity at the required pressure been supplied to the complainant, then the opposite party could have said that the amount which the complainant deposited for getting a connection was utilized. THE complainant could not get any benefit from erecting the poles or laying the lines. THErefore, the opposite party is liable to refund this amount to the complainant. Thus we find that the complainant is entitled to claim refund of Rs. 9,854.82. ORDER THE complaint is partly decreed to the extent that the opposite party, Electricity Board, shall refund a sum of Rs. 98,542.82 within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the expiry of two months till the date of payment is liable to be paid. We assess the cost of this complaint to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant at Rs. 2,000/-. Let compliance of the order be made within two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Complaint partly allowed.