SANJOGATA vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 15.2.1999 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter called the District Forum) vide which the complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts stated in the first three paras of the complaint lodged by the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant had been given Electricity Temporary Connection bearing A/c No. T-74 in village Beganwali. A security amount of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited on 1.7.1998. The electricity connection is meant for operation of tubewell. On 25.7.1998 a team of the opposite parties comprising Junior Engineer and others came to the complainant''s village at about 1.30 p.m. and had gone to the site of installation. On seeing connection they removed the cables and told the servant of the complainant to send his master to Circle Office, Khui Khera. It needs mention here that factual position in these three paras has been admitted as correct by the opposite party. In para No. 4 of the complaint it has been specifically alleged by the complainant that her husband Sh. Dalip Singh had visited the Circle Office, Khui Khera and had apprised the officers present there that the temporary connection provided to the complainant was legal and was within the framework of the Board. No heed was paid to the version of the complainant and the cable was not installed. In the next para No. 5 of the complaint it has been specifically alleged that a representation was made to the Executive Engineer and the complainant had also met S.E., P.S.E.B., Mukatsar and had apprised him to the illegal disconnection of the cable. It is then mentioned in this para of the complaint that as a result of illegal disconnection the operation of the tubewell had been stopped and the complainant had been subjected to unnecessary harassment. It is then alleged that even for removing the cable the opposite parties had not given any sort of notice, which is required to be given. It is further alleged in the complaint that as a result of illegal disconnection crops of the complainant could not be watered for three days, resulting into financial loss to the complainant. These allegations made by the complainant have simply been denied. In reply to the allegations made in para 4 of the complaint it is simply stated by the opposite party that in fact cable was removed by an A.A.E. at the time of checking, but on 26.7.1998 after knowing the fact that the temporary connection was issued to the complainant cable was restored on 27.7.1998.

The District Forum after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint by holding as under : "The officials of the opposite party disconnected the connection of Smt. Sanjogata and also removed the cables. Ex. C-2 does not bear the signature of Dalip Singh from which it is clear that no representation had ever been made to the S.D.O., P.S.E.B., Mukatsar, as alleged. The connection of Smt. Sanjogata was restored by the opposite party without any delay. No evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove that Smt. Sanjogata has suffered the alleged loss. No authority letter has been placed on file that Smt. Sanjogata ever authorised her husband Dalip Singh to file the present complaint on behalf of her. It has also not been pleaded in the complaint that Dalip Singh is beneficial user of the said electricity connection. As such Dalip Singh is not competent to file the instant complaint on behalf of Smt. Sanjogata. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs."

The complainant has come up in this appeal before us against the order dated 15.2.1999 of the District Forum.

WE have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It has been specifically mentioned in the heading of the complaint that the complainant Smt. Sanjogata was filing the same through her husband Sh. Dalip Singh. The complaint has been signed by Sh. Dalip Singh. Thus, this technical objection should not have been taken into consideration by the District Forum, particularly when he has allowed the complaint to proceed and Dalip Singh husband of the complainant Smt. Sanjogata has pursued the complaint till its logical end. In these circumstances, we hold that Dalip Singh was competent to file the complaint on behalf of her wife Smt. Sanjogata. We also hold that the District Forum has erred in law and on facts in not awarding compensation to the complainant. Our reasons are as under : 1. Factual position that temporary electricity connection was sanctioned to the complainant for operation of his tubewell, is not disputed. It has also been admitted by the opposite party that on 25.7.1998 a Junior Engineer along with others had disconnected the temporary connection of the tubewell and had also removed the cables. It had also not been specifically denied that the husband of Smt. Sanjogata had first to go to the officers of Circle Office, Khui Khera for restoration of the connection of his tubewell, but he did not meet with any success. It is also not specifically denied that representation was made to the Executive Engineer and thereafter he had also to meet S.E., P.S.E.B., Mukatsar to apprise him of the fact that connection of his tubewell has been disconnected illegally. It is, thus, after moving from one place to other and from one office to other that ultimately the connection of the tubewell was restored. It is also a fact that in the month of July when the crops were standing in the field of the complainant that they could not be watered due to the deliberate action of the opposite party in disconnecting the validly sanctioned connection of the complainant and without even ascertaining as to whether there was any cause for disconnecting the same. The complainant suffered monetary loss due to damage to his crops due to non-watering, mental agony and harassment.

IN these circumstances, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is certainly proved. Consequently, we set aside the order of the District Forum and award a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for monetary loss, mental agony and unnecessary harassment. Consequently, this appeal is allowed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 2,000/-. The opposite parties are at liberty to recover the amount from the official/officials responsible for their negligent act. Appeal allowed with costs.