U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SIARAM

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.4.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faizabad in Complaint Case No. 288/1992.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Siaram r/o Sahadatganj, Distt. Faizabad applied for an electricity connection with the opposite party. The connection was sought for self employment to start the business of motor winding, grinding and expelling. An amount of Rs. 25/- was deposited with the Electricity Deptt. on 11.10.1991 along with application form. The complainant contacted Sri Anand Kumar, Junior Engineer of the appellants but could not satisfy the demand for money raised by the Junior Engineer. Compelled, the complainant approached the District Magistrate from time to time and on his intervention, the connection was sanctioned on 6.1.1992. The agreement was entered into between two parties on 22.1.1992 but inspite of this the connection was not given. After a lot of running about the estimate was given to the complainant and the entire amount asked by the appellants was deposited on 30.5.1992, on the promise by the appellants that the connection will soon be installed. The appellants were still demanding money from the complainant and the meter which was already lying in the premises has not been sealed and has not been connected from the main line. There has been non-cooperation from the appellant''s side and the complainant was threatened that in case he continued to complain to the higher authorities then no help will be provided. The electric connection should have been given within one month of the deposit of the amount against the estimate with the result that the complainant was lying idle for more than six months and has been running to the offices of the appellant and in the process had incurred a loss of Rs. 24,000/- because the loss of employment. The complainant, therefore, lodged a claim before the District Consumer Forum for recovery of Rs. 26,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12%. It was also prayed that the Department of the appellant be directed to provide immediate power connection to the complainant. In the written statement before the District Consumer Forum, the appellants stated that there was no delay of eight months in giving connection. The electric connection cannot be given on the date of depositing registration/survey charges. A person becomes entitled for getting the electric connection only when he deposits the service connection charges and on execution of agreement. After execution of agreement connection is given within a reasonable time. The complainant had deposited the relevant documents on 7.4.1992 and connection was given to him on 16.6.1992 and, therefore, there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.

The District Consumer Forum after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that there has been a delay of nine months in providing the electricity connection to the complainant and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation within a period of four weeks of the date of order failing which 12% interest per annum shall also be payable.

AGGRIEVED of this order, the opposite party has come in this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsels for the two parties. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that there has been no delay in providing electric connection to the complainant. The procedure laid down by the Department was followed which involves survey and enquiry. No specific time frame has been provided to provide connection. As per the rules of the Electricity Board, the connection is provided on completion of formalities and after taking into the consideration the feasibility of giving connection. The connection was sanctioned in the month of March, 1992 and was energized in the month of June, 1992. The agreement was executed in the month of April, 1992. The inspection was carried out on 15.5.1992. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that the appeal is time barred and has been filed beyond the period of limitation and the reasons advanced for condoning the delay are not genuine.

A perusal of the record goes to show that the opposite parties were represented in the case before the District Consumer Forum and their stand before the Forum was that the connection had been given to the complainant on 16.6.1992. The Forum concluded that inspite of the fact that the complaint was lodged before the Forum on 15.6.1992 and the connection was given on 16.6.1992, there has been a delay on the part of the opposite parties in providing connection to the complainant and, therefore, the complaint was decreed to the effect that the opposite parties shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation within a period of four weeks failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall also be payable. The papers on the appeal file clearly go to show that the complainant had deposited the amount of estimate, Rs. 2,635/- on 30.3.1992 but the connection was given on 16.6.1992 after one day of filing of complaint before the District Consumer Forum. Initially the amount of Rs. 25/- along with application was given by the complainant to the opposite parties on 11.10.1991. From 11.10.1991 onwards the appellants came into action only on 30.3.1992 which is an abnormal delay, inspite of the fact that the sanction of the connection was made on 6.1.1992. It appears that the opposite parties were not willing to help the complainant inspite of the fact that he had been completing the formalities promptly and in the process the complainant lost atleast six months'' time in getting the connection. Therefore, the order of the District Consumer Forum awarding compensation of Rs. 3,000/- appears to be justified keeping in view the facts of the case. In addition to the facts mentioned above, the judgment and order dated 30.4.1993 was appealed against on 28.7.1993 and, therefore, there has been a delay of about three months. The appeal should have been filed by 29.5.1993 as the opposite parties had contested the case before the District Consumer Forum and they had full knowledge of the matter. There was, therefore, no justification for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment and order of the Forum on 13.7.1993 when the judgment and order was already in the notice of the appellants as is clear from the memo of appeal and application for condonation of delay. In the condonation application, it has been stated that Electricity Distribution Division at Faizabad applied for seeking permission of the Law Officer to file the appeal, as under the official set up of the UPSEB no case can be contested without permission of the Head Office and the approval was given by the Head Office on 30.6.1993 which was received in the office of the opposite parties on 9.7.1993. It has nowhere been clarified as to what the opposite parties were doing from 30.4.1993 to 30.6.1993. This delay of two months has not been explained at all by the opposite party. Even it has not been clarified as to how the letter of sanction for filing the appeal dated 30.6.1993 reached Faizabad on 15.7.1993 as the distance between the Lucknow and Faizabad is not much and the delay for the intervening period has not been specifically explained. Therefore, the appellants were negligent in filing the appeal and the appeal is clearly barred by time and on this ground also the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost to the complainant. Let compliance of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.