SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, H.S.E.B. vs Surinder

THIS order shall dispose of two appeals- Appeal No. 256 of 1994 filed by Surinder and Appeal No. 262 of 1994 filed by the Haryana State Electricity Board against the same impugned order dated 6.4,1994 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, by which the complaint of Surinder has been allowed by awarding an amount of Rs. 4,000/- as compensation to the complainant for damage to his crops on account of deficiency in service while maintaining the electricity line to the tubewell of the complainant. Surinder, brother of Suresh, had approached the learned District Forum claiming compensation against the H.S.E.B. for not maintaining the electric supply to his tubewell in order in September, 1993 due to which he suffered a huge loss to his crops. In reply, the H.S.E.B. pleaded that firstly the complainant Surinder was not a consumer of H.S.E.B. as the electricity connection was in the name of his brother Suresh who had not been impleaded as a party in the complaint. Secondly, that due to some theft of electricity wire the electricity poles had to be provided with adequate supply of wire which was not readily available in the stores and thus the H.S.E.B. staff took some time in restoring the electricity. Despite this, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint without first deciding the basic question with regard to the maintainability of the complaint on behalf of Surinder who was not a consumer of the Electricity Board.

IN the appeal filed by the H.S.E.B. after perusing the record of the District Forum and the departmental account-papers it stands established that Surinder was not the account- holder of electricity connection and the real person in whose name the electricity connection was granted was one Suresh Kumar. Since Suresh Kumar did not appear before the learned District Forum or before the Commission nor has any authorisation on his behalf been produced in favour of Surinder, the complaint was not maintainable at all. Thus, the complaint filed by Surinder Kumar deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Otherwise also, when the theft of electricity wire had taken place on 9.9.1993 on account of which an FIR No. 183 had also been lodged with the police, H.S.E.B. had no option but to requisition electricity wire from the stores for restoring the electricity to the tubewell of the complainant. INcidentally the electricity wire was not readily available in the stores and this necessitated the obtaining of the same from some other quarters. All this process was bound to take some time. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Board authorities and for this reason also the complaint was liable to be dismissed. Consequently, we accept the Appeal (No. 262 of 1994) filed by the H.S.E.B. and dismiss the Appeal (No. 256 of 1994) filed by the complainant with no order as to costs. Appeal 262 allowed. Appeal 256 dismissed.