Sitaram Yadav vs RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS appeal has been filed by Sitaram Yadav against the order of the District Forum, Jaipur dated 18.9.92 dismissing his complaint.

FACTS given rise to this appeal are that on 6.3.92 Sitaram Yadav complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jaipur with the averments that his father Chandaram Yadav had agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 185, 186, 187,188, 197, 198, 193, 194, 195 and 200 situated in village Baseri, Tehsil Jaipur. Chandaram Yadav died in the year 1989 and after his death this agricultural land was mutated in the name of the complainant and his three other brothers. Now the complainant and his three brothers were Khatedar tenants of these agricultural lands. It is alleged that there was a well in land bearing Khasra No. 200. On Nov. 14, 1968, Chandaram Yadav, father of the complainant had applied to the opposite parties for the sanction of electricity connection and the basic number allotted to him was A-75901- Receipt No. 6. After the death of his father in the year 1989, the complainant wanted to get the electricity connection in his name to the application for connection which had been submitted by his father. For this purpose he went to the office of the Asstt. Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Bhankrota several times, but he was misbehaved and illegal gratification was asked from him. The complainant also made a written application in the office of the Asstt. Engineer and thereupon the complainant was informed that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board had sent a registered notice on 28.10.89 to the complainant stating that the application for electricity connection had been cancelled because no well was found on agricultural land bearing Khasra Number 200. It was alleged that the father of the complainant had enclosed with the application the report of the Patwari and site plan signed by Tehsildar to the effect that there was a well on land bearing Khasra No. 200. The complainant was not given any notice to show against cancellation of the application. He was always prepared to deposit the necessary charges. It was therefore prayed that the application for grant of electricity connection under Immediate Electric Supply Scheme may ordered to be restored and it may be directed that on completion of all the required formalities, the electricity connection may be supplied. Upon reference being made, the opposite parties filed their version before the District Forum on Aug. 12, 1992. It was admitted in the version filed by the opposite parties that Chandaram Yadav had made an application for sanction of the electricity connection on 14.11.68 and basic No. A-75901 was allotted to him. The opposite parties showed ignorance about the year of death of Chandaram Yadav. When the complainant came in the office, he was informed about the correct facts that on enquiry, no well was found on the land and information in this regard was sent to the complainant by registered letter. The complainant never intimated to the Electricity Board about the death of his father.

The District Forum in its order observed that the opposite parties had pleaded that they had sent a registered letter to the father of the complainant on 28.10.89. The complainant had not filed any affidavit in support of his version and had not clarified about the receipt of the registered letter sent by Rajasthan State Electricity Board and about the steps which he took on receipt of the letter. lt was also not shown that the complainant had informed the RSEB about the death of his father. In such circumstances, the RSEB cancelled the application for electricity connection made by the father of the complainant and no right to get the electricity connection sanctioned on the basis of that application survives. On the basis of these findings, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. The complainant has come in appeal before this State Commission.

I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. Counsel for the respondents was also directed to produce the file of the RSEB pertaining to the application for electricity connection made by Chandaram Yadav and the same was produced for the perusal of the State Commission. On going through the file of the RSEB, it appears that Chandaram Yadav had as a matter of fact made an application on 18.11.88 for sanction of electricity connection. On this application, the Patwari had certified that the well in relation to which the complainant wanted to take electricity connection bore Khasra No. 200 and was measuring 66 Bighas 2 Biswas. Chandaram Yadav had 5/24 share in the well. It further appears that after the death of his father the complainant had made applications to the Junior Engineer, RSEB, Bhankrota and the Asstt. Engineer stating that he made an application on 18.11.88 for electricity connection, but he had not received any information. It was also mentioned in the application that the application was made for electricity connection in the name of Chandaram Yadav. The Assistant Engineer by his letter dated 6.2.92 sent an intimation in the name of Chandaram stating that on 28.10.89 a registered notice had been sent bearing number 5124 to the effect that when site was inspected, no well was found. It was also mentioned in the notice that Chandaram Yadav could in this regard made correspondence within seven days, otherwise the application for electricity connection would be cancelled. The complainant made an application on 31.2.92 to the Asstt. Engineer that he did not receive the notice dated 28.10.89. He asserted that there existed a well on the land and he can again furnished a certificate in this regard. First question that arises is as to whether the complainant was ''consumer'' within the meaning assigned to the term by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Admittedly, the Rajasthan State Electricity Board had not sanctioned the electricity connection for which application had been made by the complainant''s father Chandaram Yadav. No demand note for any amount in connection with the sanction of electricity connection was sent and none was deposited by Chandaram Yadav or the complainant. In M. Ahmed-ul-Haq v. Asstt. Engineer, RSEB, Chamarajanagar & Others reported in II (1991) CPJ 455, it was held that by merely filing an application for supply of electricity, the complainant cannot be said to have hired services from the Karnataka Electricity Board for consideration and he was not a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act. In Gujarat Electricity Board v. Suleman Mithabhai Khadu reported in III (1992) CPJ 53, it was observed:- "When the potential consumer performs his part of the contract but the other party did not accept the offer or may refused to grant the services, the question of deficiency in service might not arise unless we come to the conclusion that non-extending the service itself is a deficiency The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the complainant who has paid the deposit to whom the energy is not granted for some apparent reason can be said that he is a consumer? To our opinion he is not a consumer. And if the energy is not granted, can it be said to be deficiency in service? To our opinion the relationship of a consumer and provider of service has not came into existence and, therefore, the question of deficiency in service does not arise in this case."

IN M/s. Hemrajani Tubes (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The National Small INdustries Corporation Ltd. & Others, III (1992) CPJ 14 (NC), National Commission held that relationship of hiring service for consideration was not established and the petitioner cannot claim the status of a consumer. This State Commission in Kushal Singh v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Others, reported in II (1993) CPJ 840 held that the relief for the grant of electricity connection in favour of the complainant cannot be granted by the State Commission. In the present case also, the complainant had not hired any service from the respondents. Merely because complainant''s father had applied for electricity connection to the well, neither the father nor the complaint became a consumer within the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complaint filed by the complainant was, therefore, not maintainable. On this ground alone, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.