THAKUR RAJPAL SINGH PUNDHEER vs U.P.S.E.B. THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER

This revision petition has been filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 20.11.2006, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in appeal No. 2333/1997, " U.P.S.E.B. (UPPCL) vs. Thakur Raj Pal Singh ," vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 13.05.1997, passed by the District Forum Muzzaffarnagar, in consumer complaint No. 159/1995, allowing the said complaint, was set aside.

The facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner Thakur Raj Pal Singh stated in his complaint that he had installed a private tube-well for irrigating his agricultural land in village Pipalshah, District Muzaffarnagar and the electricity supply to the said tube-well as well as the residential area of the village was being made by the opposite party (OP) UP State Electricity Board from a transformer situated on the tube-well of the complainant. It is alleged that the said transformer got burnt nearly 4 months back and had not been repaired till the filing of the complaint. The OPs were contacted many times personally as well as through letters and reminders to restore the electricity supply but all efforts went in vain. The complainant had to incur additional expenses for irrigating his crop due to non-supply of electricity. As per statement attached with the complaint, he spent a sum of 47,200/- the specific details of which had been provided in the statement. The complainant sought directions to get the transformer repaired and to have the electricity restored and also to pay a sum of 47,200/- on irrigating the land and another sum of 25,000/- as damages. A perusal of the order passed by the District Forum indicates that the OP put in appearance before the District Forum through counsel but failed to file their written statement. The District Forum concluded from the oral and documentary evidence before them that the transformer at the tubewell did get burnt, due to which the electricity supply to the complainant as well as to the village could not be made. The complainant supported his case from the affidavits filed by some residents of villages as well as certificates from the Village Pradhan and Pramukh of block committee. The District Forum directed that the OPs should pay a sum of 47,200/- to the complainant on account of the expenses incurred on irrigation and also, the OP should not charge the bill for the period, the electricity had not been supplied.

Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP UPSEB challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission, which was decided vide impugned order dated 20.11.2006. The State Commission allowed the appeal saying that the instant case was for damages against the OP, for which a civil suit should have been filed. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

It was contended by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the factum of the transformer having been burnt and non-supply of electricity had been duly proved on record. The complainant had only demanded compensation for the additional expenses incurred on irrigation, i.e., 47,200/- and damages of 25,000/- only. The State Commission was not justified in concluding that the complainant should go to a civil court in the matter.

In reply, the Ld. Counsel for respondent stated that the proper forum to take decision in the matter was civil court and hence, the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law. The Ld. Counsel, however, admitted that the transformer in question was not functional for some time.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

There is a delay of 67 days in filing the present revision petition. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. It has been stated therein that the petitioner being an old man, fell sick in the last week of March 2007 and hence, time was spent in engaging the services of a counsel. In view of the position explained in the application, the delay in filing the petition is condoned.

From the facts and circumstances on record, it is amply made clear and also admitted by the OPs that the transformer, in question, was not functional for some time. The order passed by the District Forum, therefore, allowing the consumer complaint does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality of any kind. The complainant is definitely a consumer of the OPs as he has availed himself of their services for supply of electricity to them and hence, he is very much covered under the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is not understood as to how the State Commission passed an order, asking the complainant to go to a civil court. The said order is obviously perverse in the eyes of law, because the State Commission seems to have totally ignored the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in particular, section 3 of the said Act which says that the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The order passed by the State Commission is, therefore, ordered to be set aside.

In so far as the relief demanded by the complainant and allowed by the District Forum is concerned, the said forum have based their findings on the basis of the evidence provided by the complainant that the electricity supply got disrupted as the transformer got burnt and hence, the complainant had to incur an additional expenditure on irrigation of his agriculture crops. The copies of affidavits filed by a number of persons, including the Gram Pradhan and Block Pramukh have been placed on record, giving the exact details about the additional expenditure incurred by the complainant on irrigation of his crop, after the electricity from the OP got disrupted.

On the other hand, the OPs failed to file a written statement before the District Forum despite appearance. A perusal of the memo of appeal filed by them before the State Commission also reveals that the only ground taken by the OP is that the complainant did not approach the concerned officer with his complaint. There is absolutely no justification in the stand taken by the OPs, because it was their duty to ensure proper supply of electricity to the complainant as well as to the village. The District Forum further directed that the bill for the period, the electricity remained disrupted should not be charged. This direction is also quite reasonable.

Based on the discussion above, and keeping in view the material on record, this revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The order passed by the District Forum is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.