SUDHAN SINGH vs HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Bhiwani dismissing the appellant''s complaint.

THE appellant in his complaint had alleged that he was released a 10 H.P. electric connection on the 17th of October, 1991 for his tubewell situated in village Chahar Khurd. However, he had hardly started irrigating his fields when on the 25th of October, 1991, the power was disconnected. THEreafter he pleaded with the respondent-board for re-connection but to no avail, and consequently knocked at the door of the District Forum claiming restoration of the connection and compensation to the tune of rupees One lac. In resolutely defending the complaint the respondent-Board took the categoric plea that in fact no connection was issued to the complainant and that power was granted to his tubewell by a Junior Engineer unauthorisedly despite the fact that his turn had not come for. the release of the connection. On coming to know of this patent irregularity, the senior Officers directed disconnection and the concerned junior Officer was placed under suspension. It was further the case that a 25 KVA capacity transformer existed in the fields of one Ram Kishan whose connected load is 15 BHP and as per instructions the said transformer can be loaded only upto 22.7 BHP. Consequently it is technically not feasible and no question of putting 10 HP more load on the above transformer by connecting the tubewell of the applicant was possible.

The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases and the District Forum on an appraisal thereof came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in the services of electric energy hiped by the consumer-appellant because the connection was obtained by him by unfair means in collusion with a Junior Engineer who was placed under suspension etc. As already noticed, the complaint was therefore, dismissed.

MR. Ranjit Saini, the learned Counsel for the appellant was somewhat off the mark in vehemently prosecuting the appeal. We were invited to enter into the thicket of the seniority of the appellant in the roster for the release of electricity connection and the basic issue whether the energising of his tubewell had been obtained by under-hand means of bringing the Junior Engineer of the Board. We are afraid that the primal submission of Mr. Saini is devoid of merit. As has been noticed by the District Forum rightly the crucial issue for grant of relief herein was whether there existed a patent deficiency in the services undertaken to be rendered by the respondent-board? Herein, far from this being established, the boot seems to be on the other leg. It would appear that the tubewell of the appellant was energised surreptitiously on the 17th of October, 1991 and on the illegality being discovered the same was dis-connected within a week on the 25th of October, 1991. It is the firm case of the respondent-board which is a public organization that the turn of the appellant for the release of an electric connection had indeed not reached as yet and there were persons senior to him in the roster. Consequently, the firm stand is that the energising of the tubewell was wholly out of turn and was immediately countermanded by the superior Officers.

AGAIN it does not seem to be in dispute that the Junior Engineer of the respondent-board has been charge-sheeted virtually on the ground of employing underhand means for releasing the connection and the matter has been considered serious enough to entail his suspension during the enquiry. Prima facie the stand of the respondent-board is that energising of the tubewell was the handy work of a corrupt official acting apparently in collusion with the appellant. Lastly it is the firm case that even the release of the connection was technically not feasible as the transformer at the site was unable to take on the additional load. Any unauthorised addition was thus fraught with the danger of damage to the electrical equipment and the senior Officers of the Board on this ground as well had rightly declined the connection. In view of the aforesaid firm ground taken by the respondent-board, it cannot even remptely be said that they are guilty of any deficiency in rendering the services of the supply of electric energy which they may have undertaken to render an intending consumer.'' The District Forum was thus eminently right in the view it has taken and the present appeal is without merit.

FOR the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, we decline to burden the appellant-consumer with any costs. Appeal dismissed.