S.R. DAL MILLS vs U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE Complainant-Shri Swadesh Srivastava, claiming to be one of the partners in the firm of M/s. S.R. Dal Mills has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party - U.P. State Electricity Board. According to the complainant, he was sanctioned 35 H.P. power connection for the Dal Mill in April, 1987. He deposited a sum of Rs. 21.387/- on account of installation charges, security deposit etc. but he has not been given power so far in spite of numerous representations to the different officers of the Opposite Party Electricity Board. In consequence of the default on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has suffered immense damage for being unable to run the Dal Mills without power; on the other band he bad incurred liability for payment of interest including penal interest to the U.P. Financial Corporation on the loan received by him for the establishment of the Dal Mill. He has, therefore, claimed damages of Rs. 24.00 lacs inclusive of past and future damages. THE Opposite Party State Electricity Board in its counter statement took preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint and also contested on merits the allegations regarding deficiency in service levelled by the complainant.

THE Opposite Party Electricity Board has further pointed out that the partnership of S.R. Dal Mills was dissolved in January, 1989 and since then the Mill premises have been lying locked. THE Opposite Party further averred that the complainant Shri Swadesh Srivastava has filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Kanpur against U.P. Financial Corporation in March, 1990 claiming himself to be the sole proprietor of S.R. Dal Mills. Shri Swadesh Srivastava has also alleged in the suit that the second partner has sold away the generator set and plant & machinery fraudulently without the consent of the U.P. Financial Corporation. Further that because of the dispute inter se between the partners, a lock was placed in the Dal Mills. THE Opposite Party Electricity Board has also pointed out that the U.P. State Finance Corporation has alleged in the suit between the Complainant & U.P. Financial Corporation that the complainant and his erstwhile partner had sold off fraudulently and without the consent of the U.P. Financial Corporation the plant & machinery hypothecated to the Finance Corporation. In that suit he has also alleged that the Finance Corporation has withheld a part of the promised loan and that this prevented him from running the Mill but the U.P. Financial Corporation has not been impleaded in this complaint. Further when an officer of the Opposite Party Electricity Board visited the premises of the complainant in February, 1989 and finding it locked, he pasted a notice on the gate asking the complainant to contact the officer of the concerned Electricity Board. But none came to visit him. Further, enquiries from neighbourhood showed that there were disputes among the partners which had led to the premises being locked at the instance of partners themselves. All this was confirmed by the SDO of the Opposite Party, Shri M.G. Khan, who visited the premises a number of times in 1990. In his rejoinder the complainant has sought to amend his complaint with the effect that the complainant is Mr. Swadesh Srivastava, now proprietor of S.R. Dal Mills. He has denied that the Dal Mills were lying locked.

After perusal of the additional affidavit filed by Shri Swadesh Srivastava, we do not find that he has adequately controverted the reasons furnished by the Opposite Party for not supplying power to the Mills.

ON the face of it, the Complainant has failed to establish that he has a bona fide complaint of deficiency in service to be rendered by the Opposite Party Electricity Board. The additional affidavit filed by the Opposite Party on 25th July, 1992 shows that 1 K.W. electricity connection was released in favour of Dal Mills on 22nd June, 1987 but very little power was consumed by the Mills. The first bill of the electricity consumed was only Rs. 36/- in a period of six months. Thereafter 61 units of electricity were consumed. 20 units were consumed between March and May, 1988. There after the matter shows no consumption. These facts confirm completely that the Mills were lying locked after July, 1988. This Commission also feels that it is not necessary to go into the matter further. This is not a bona fide consumer dispute. The petition is therefore, dismissed. This is without prejudice to the petitioner''s right to pursue any other remedies that may be available to him for redressal against the Electricity Board in other judicial forums.

HE shall pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the Opposite Party - U.P. State Electricity Board. Appeal dismissed.