SHARDA DEVI vs RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the ''Act'') by the complainant is directed against the order dated 7.9.1995 whereby District Forum, Dholpur dismissed her Complaint No. 92 of 1992.

ON 11.11.1992 the appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, Dholpur, alleging therein that in order to irrigate her agricultural land, situated at village Raja Khera, she had submitted her application to the respondents for sanction of an electric connection for agricultural purposes; that although thereafter she deposited a sum of Rs. 1,950/- on 12.4.1990, as per demand of the respondents, but no electric connection was sanctioned to her, though the electric supply line was laid down ahead of her well and electric connections were sanctioned to other persons, that in order to supply electric connections to the agriculturists having their wells ahead of appellant''s well the respondents had laid down a number of supply lines over her land endangering the very lives of the men working on the land of the appellant but when she requested the respondents to remove such supply lines from over her land, they felt annoyed with the appellant and instead of sanctioning the much awaited electric connection to her, delivered a bill for Rs. 4,262/- on 22.2.1992 without ever supplying electric energy to her well. She, therefore, prayed for cancellation of the said bill and sanction of the electric connection to her by the respondents. The case put forth by the respondents in their reply was that on appellant''s deposited the demanded amount of Rs. 1,950/- on 12.4.1990, and further submitting the ''L'' Form, the authorities concerned had ordered on 29.10.1990 to connect the well of the appellant with the supply line and in compliance of such orders of the higher authorities, the supply line was laid out on 2.12.1990 and thereafter on 21.12.1990 it was ordered by the authorities concerned that the motor on the well of the appellant be connected with the supply line and in compliance of such order the motor on the well of the appellant was connected with the electric energy supply line on 1.1.1991. It was further averred that since charges for consumption of electric energy were to be realised from the agriculturists at "Flat Rates" no meter was installed at the well of the appellant. Therefore, it was further averred, a bill for Rs. 4,262/- was prepared by "Flat Rate" system and accordingly rightly delivered to the appellant.

The District Forum accepted the version of the case as given by the respondents and dismissed appellant''s complaint.

AT the time of hearing the appeal, prayer for substitution, as reflected in the cause title, was made by the appellant and the same was allowed. It was vehemently urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was neither ever required to submit a ''L'' Form nor did she submit one to the respondents. It was also submitted that since no electric connection was ever given to her on the spot, no question of putting the signatures by appellant''s son Rajiv on any document/paper arose. The learned Counsel in fact very seriously challenged the truthfulness and genuineness of the documents and affidavits submitted by the respondents in support of their version and taking us through the report of the Local Commissioner highlighted the fact that no signs, marks or traces of the fitting of any electricity supply line were noticed in or around the well of the appellant. It was strenuously urged that since the appellant was not provided the electric connection from the supply line, which was though laid down in and taken ahead of her field to supply electric connection to the agriculturists having their lands ahead of the land of the appellant. The learned Counsel took us through the report of the Commissioner and the affidavits filed by him and other persons in support of appellant''s version and submitted that it was really unfortunate and somewhat painful to note that the learned District Forum did not even like to refer to such relevant and material evidence in the impugned order.

ON the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents heavily relied upon the documents submitted by the respondents before the District Forum and supported the impugned order. Looking to the nature of allegations and cross-allegations, made by the parties against each other, we closely examined their pleadings and the affidavits and other documents filed by them in support of their respective versions. We though permitted the respondents at our stage to rebut the sworn testimony of Rajiv in his affidavit, denying his signatures on the documents filed by the respondents before the Forum, explain the delay of raising the demand against the appellant after the expiry of 14 months, if the electric connection had been sanctioned to her w.e.f. 1.1.1991 and also to rebut the facts found by the Commissioner on his local inspection of the well of the appellant during the pendency of the complaint, yet the respondents simply filed a vague reply. After having taken into account the explanation submitted by the respondents to such questions by us and on serious and thoughtful consideration of the evidence produced by the parties in this case we entertain no doubt that the case put forth by the respondent is a bundle of lies and the documents produced by them are quite false, forged and subsequently prepared only to defeat the genuine prayer of an agriculturist lady. It is really unfortunate that the District Forum did not like to take into account the report of the Commissioner, who had prepared such report in the presence of both the parties and thus mis-appreciated the evidence on record. We fail to ignore and overlook the fact that although electric supply line already stood laid out in and went ahead of appellant''s field supplying electric energy to other agriculturists and although the appellant had deposited the demanded amount with the respondents as early as on 12.4.1990, but she was not sanctioned the desired connection during the long 12 years. This conclusion is irresistible in this case when the evidence available on the record of the Forum is appreciated in right perspective.

THE case of the respondent in reply to that of the appellant was that the demanded sum of Rs. 1,950/- was deposited by the appellant on 12.4.1990, and had further submitted the ''L'' Form and thereafter on 29.12.1990 the authority concerned had sanctioned the connection to the appellant and in compliance of such orders, the supply line was laid out on 2.12.1990 and the well of the appellant was connected with supply line on 21.12.1990 in presence of appellant''s son, Rajiv. This version was sought to be supported with the affidavits of S/Sri Rama Shankar Hundawal, Asstt. Engineer; Jang Singh Yadav, Jr. Engineer, and Jagdish Prasad, Helper. THE photostat copies of order of the concerned authority dated 21.12.1990 and ''L'' Form dated 31.3.1990 were also produced. A bare perusal of these documents exhibits their malicious and misleading origin.

IT is an undisputed position that it was on 12.4.1990 that the appellant had deposited the demanded amount of Rs. 1,950/-. IT is not understandable as to how was it that she came to submit the ''L'' Form on 31.3.1990. The respondents have filed neither the copy of her application nor the copy of any letter issued by them to her requiring her to submit the ''L'' Form. The occasion for asking for submission of ''L'' Form by her would not have arisen prior to sanctioning of the connection to her and the connection is stated to have been sanctioned only on 29.10.1990. The copy of the ''L'' form produced by the respondent does not disclose the name and address of the contractor who had allegedly issued it. His name and address has not even been disclosed by any of the three deponents, who filed their affidavits in support of respondents'' version. Appellant''s witnesses on the other hand emphatically denied on oath that any ''L'' Form was ever submitted by the appellant along with her application or subsequently thereto. The document produced is this found not only a false one but fabricated too by the concerned officials/officers of the respondents, knowingly prepared by them to defeat the genuine grievance of the appellant. Now coming to the question of connecting the well of the appellant with the supply line on 21.12.1990 it is noted that what is mentioned in the report is simply this "xxx xxx xxx". This report on the front sheet is not signed by any one. It simply talks of "xxxx" which in local dialects means that the loose wire was thrown on the "live wire". On the back of the sheet the illegible signature of the lineman but legible signature of one "Rajiv" and name of Jang Singh, A.En. are noticed. Rajiv in his affidavit has denied on oath his signature on the sheet. A bare glance at his signature on the affidavit and in this sheet would convince one that those were not made by one and the same person. Then it is really surprising to note that when the higher authorities had ordered on 29.10.1990 for connecting the well of the appellant with the supply line, which was passing through her field, what was the necessity of laying down a service line again on 2.12.1990. Even if it be assumed that one was taken on 2.12.1990 from the pole to the well of the appellant, then why it could not be connected with the motor on the well on that day and why was that done on 21.12.1990. If the well was connected on 21.12.1990, what was the necessity of again reconnecting the same on 1.1.1991. These facts, stated by Rama Shankar, A.En., Jang Singh Yadav''. J.En. and Jagdish Prasad, Helper in their respective affidavits are not only self-contradictory but also totally false and heavily reflected upon their conduct as truthful Government servants.

As against the above position of the version of the case as per the respondents, the case of the appellant finds full support and good corroboration from the report of Mr. Durga Prasad, Advocate dated 10.7.1993, who was appointed as the Local Commissioner by the Forum for spot inspection. The Commissioner specifically reported that in the newly constructed room and varanda, marked ABCD, at the well of the appellant no cable, no electric fitting or electric equipments or even signs or marks of having supplied an electric line were noticeable and noticed. He further reported that at a distance of about 4 feet from the room there was the well wherein there was no water, no pipe to take the water therefrom. He has further reported that at point ''X'', which was only 10 feet away from appellant''s well, there was the electric pole and that the three phases of the live wires between the poles ''Y'' and ''X'' passed just over the roof of appellant''s room and above the well. This report was prepared by the Commissioner in the presence of the respondents and their Counsel but none of them raised any objection against the facts found by the Commissioner on his local inspection. The facts found exposes the condemnable falsity of the versions given by the A.En., J.En. and the Wiremen of the respondents, in their respective affidavits and documents.

IT was in the course of preparation of this order that at this stage we received written arguments accompanied with certified copy of the extract from consumers'' ledger, from the respondents and also written submissions from the appellant. Consumers'' Ledger is in two sheets, one having Column Nos. 1 to 44 and the other beginning from Column No. 3 and ending on Column No. 38, though it is also in the same proforma. In Column No. 11 the date of 1.1.1991 has been mentioned against the name of the appellant (mentioned in Column No. 2) and in Column No. 13 the words "no bill" have been struck off and initialled by some officer but again below the struck off words the words "Noted" and "on 26.2.1991" have been written. In the other sheet a liability of Rs. 658/- has been shown in Column No. 38 for March, 1991 against the name of the consumer, whose name is not known from this sheet due to tearing off the sheet from both sides, showing Column Nos. 1 and 2 on the left side and 39 to 44 on the right. No relation between sheet Nos. 1 and 2 is established. Sheet No. 2 appears to have been deliberately cut on both sides to hide the identity of the consumers. The documents so produced by the respondents at this stage are thus not at all reliable. This misguiding effort appears to have been made by the respondents to explain the entries made in the bill dated 22.2.1992 whereby a demand for Rs. 4,262/- had been raised against the appellant, though no electric connection had, as has been found above, at all been ever provided to her on her well. This bill showed, at S. No. 1 - demand of Rs. 3,141/- for consumption of the electric energy by her during the current period. At S. No. 2 - other outstanding dues, was shown. The ledger entries, even if they be taken into account, do not support the entries in this bill and ledger account for March, 1992 or of any earlier period has not been produced. By her written submission the appellant has apprised the Commission that having been fed up by the constant harassment by the concerned officials/officers of the respondent No. 1 and by creation of false liabilities by them against her she was compelled to sell her land and now she was no more interested in having an electric connection for agricultural purposes. She has, therefore, prayed for the refund of her money Rs. 1,950/- with interest. The relief, which might have been awarded to her on the basis of discussion made above, thus gets modified.

TO sum up, we hold that respondents did not provide any electric connection to the appellant for agricultural purpose and raised totally baseless and false liability of Rs. 4,262/- against her and for the said purpose the then A.En. Sri Rama Shankar, Sri Jang Singh Yadav, J.En. and Sri Jagdish Prasad, Helper prepared false reports, statements and documents. We accordingly hold that the respondents rendered deficient service to the appellant in the matter of providing an electric connection for agricultural purposes, as applied for her in the year 1990, compelling her to sell her land. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the complaint and this appeal of the appellant are allowed for refund of Rs. 1,950/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 13.4.1990 and with cost at Rs. 5,000/-. The refundable amount and the cost shall initially be paid by respondent No. 1 to the appellant by way of Demand Draft sent to her by registered post A.D. at the address given by her in the complaint and/or memorandum of appeal or be deposited with the District Forum within a period of two months from the receipt of this order failing which the refundable amount shall be payable with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date specified above and the amount of cost @ 12% p.a. after the date of expiry of two months, as aforesaid. The disputed liability of Rs. 4,262/- raised by the respondent against the appellant, is cancelled. The amount of the cost and such other amounts incurred in connection with this litigation and which respondent No. 1 may, in its discretion, consider it proper to realise from the erring and delinquent officials/officers, shall be realised by respondent No. 1 from such erring and delinquent officials/officers who are found as such on any enquiry to be held by respondent No. 1 within a period of three months from the date of this order. The Commission considers it to be its duty to invite the attention of the Chairman of respondent No. 1 to get such cases thoroughly examined and enquired into at his level in order to save innocent consumers from the harassing activities of its subordinate officials/officers and also to protect the reputation of the organisation from being spoiled by the unfair and harassing activities of the erring and delinquent officials/officers. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Chairman of respondent No. 1, by name. Appeal allowed.