U.P.State Electricity Board vs KALIKA PRASAD PANDEY

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.12.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gorakhpur in Complaint Case No. 451/93.

BRIEFLY stated the case of the complainant is that he is a resident of rural area/village Baan in Gorakhpur District and had taken a connection on 2.2.1990 after depositing an amount of Rs. 190/-. The power connection number given to him is 404446. In the village where he lives, the supply of electricity remains constantly interrupted and remains hardly for 15 days in a month. That power is supplied in the vicinity of the area where transformer has been set up where voltage is all-right but in the distant areas the electricity supply is without proper voltage and during the night hours the voltage goes to the lowest and it is not the purpose for which the power connection had been taken. Inspite of this, the bill is charged by the opposite party, U.P. State Electricity Board for the whole month. The reason for this is low power transformer and laying of bad quality lines. The number of complaints were made to the various authorities. A site inspection was done by the authorities of opposite party and on 31.3.1992, the Executive Engineer prepared a package for improving the power supply but this package of Rs. 80,000/- was not sanctioned. The representations were again sent to the various authorities to the affect that since the supply position is highly unsatisfactory, the electricity connection may be withdrawn by the Board, the opposite party. On 6.10.1992 the old transformer was burnt and after a lot of running a new transformer was set up on 6.4.1993 but the problem of power supply remains as it was before.

The complainant, therefore, lodged a complaint with the District Consumer Forum, Gorakhpur and for this deficiency of service demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for financial loss and mental agony. He also claimed that because of failure of the power supply, the realisation of the electricity bills from 2.2.1990 should be stayed and since the transformer was burnet on 6.12.1992 and a new transformer was set up on 6.4.1993, therefore, the electricity charges from 6.12.1992 to 5.4.1993 should not be realised. It was also claimed that the opposite party be directed to ensure uninterrupted and an efficient power supply to the villagers and cost of proceedings of Rs. 1,000/- be awarded to him.

THE opposite party U.P. State Electricity Board contested the claim of the complainant and stated that uninterrupted power supply does not come under the definition of service. Complaint from the consumers are attended in the manner provided under rules framed by the Board and before providing the connection, an agreement is entered into between the Board and the consumer. THE terms and conditions of the agreement are binding on both the consumer and the opposite party. THE package prepared by the Executive Engineer for improving the power supply of the area was approved on 23.6.1993. Due to escalation in cost, a revised package was prepared and sent to the Head Office of the Board for approval. The District Consumer Forum, after hearing the two parties, decreed the complaint and ordered the opposite party to ensure uninterrupted power supply to the complainant by laying down the better quality wires and by increasing the power of the transformer. The Forum also ordered that with effect from 30.7.1993, the date of the complaint till the time when the opposite party does not ensure the compliance of the order, the opposite party shall not charge for the bills issued. The complainant was also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost.

AGGRIEVED against this order the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Forum. The appeal was filed on 6.2.1999. An application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also given by the opposite party accompanied by an affidavit filed by one of the officials of the opposite party. The grounds given in the condonation are valid. In the memo of appeal, the appellant has stated that the electricity supplied to the complainant is in rural area and the supply is made as per availability of electricity. No meters have been installed to check the consumption of electricity and minimum charges have been levied. These connections are the Janta Connections as per the policy of the Board and the State Government. The U.P. State Electricity (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Consumption) Amendment Order provides all District, Towns and the urban localities shall not get the supply of electricity daily for three hours in accordance with the electricity availability schedule issued. Essential services are, however, exempted from this schedule. The District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate that the frequency and pressure of the electrical energy supplied to the consumers residing in the rural areas is as per the prescribed norms of the Board. The complainant himself has admitted that the supply of electricity during the day time has always remained constant but at night the residents of the village faced low voltage problem. In the rural areas where the meters have not been provided, consumers normally used excess power and that results into low voltage. It is not the wilful act of the opposite party to interrupt the supply or give low voltage, therefore, no deficiency in services involved. The rules provide that the supplier shall not be liable for any claims for any loss, damages or compensation arising out of any accidental failure of supply or stoppage or curtailment or diminution or variation in supply of any failure or roastering etc. The District Consumer Forum before deciding the case, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to over-see the power supply position for the village of the complainant and acted on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. This Advocate Commissioner is not competent to give technical report. This report can only be given by Electrical Inspector. We have gone through the evidence on record. A perusal of the evidence goes to show that the complainant alongwith the residents of the village have been representing to the opposite party and to other concerned Authorities for unsatisfactory supply of power in the area. A copy of the report of the local Junior Engineer, shows that some people in the area have been obstructing in laying of the new lines. The Executive Engineer concerned of the opposite party had made all efforts to prepare a package and seek sanction of the Board and when the transformer was burnt, a new transformer was installed on 6.4.1993.

WE have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Isar Husain and Counsel for the respondent Mr. V.P. Sharma. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the main allegation in the complaint is of low voltage. The reason for this is the pressure on the line. It has also been argued that from 1989 onwards, a number of consumers in the rural areas have not been clearing their bills. The connections were given under the Rural Electricity Programme where the meters have not been provided. The learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complaint in regard to improper supply and low voltage has not been attended for the last eight years. It appears that the District Consumer Forum has not viewed the situation of the power supply in the correct prospective. The supply of power depends on the availability of power. It is a matter of common knowledge and experience that the generation of the electricity is much below than the actual requirement and that is why the Authorities resorted to roaster it. The areas which are more adversely affected by interrupted power supply are the rural areas and, therefore, the problem of low voltage is bound to remain so long as the generation is not increased. It is a fact that under the Rural Electrification Programme a target was fixed to cover most of the rural areas by providing Janta Connections with a nominal charge but it is also a fact based on common knowledge and experience that the large number of cases even the bills charged on minimum basis are not paid by the rural consumers or unauthorised connections are used. This is State-wide phenomena and, therefore, responsibility cannot be fixed on any individual of the opposite party unless there is a wilful fault. The National Commission in the case of Travancore Oxygen Limited v. Kerala State Electricity Board, I (1997) CPJ 17 (NC)=1998 CCJ 21, has held that fluctuation in voltage resulted in production loss - Electricity Board contended that frequency and pressure of electrical energy shall be subject to fluctuation and system constraints which are force majeure -complainant did not show any wilful action on the part of Electricity Board resulting in voltage fluctuation. It was held that the opposite party cannot be held deficient in its service for fluctuation in voltage.

IN view of what discussed as above, we find that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the judgment and order passed by learned District Consumer Forum deserves to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. Order The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 10.12.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gorakhpur in Complaint Case No. 451/93 is set aside. There will be no order as to cost. Let copies be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed.