U.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs MONA CONFECTIONERY INDUSTRIES

, MEMBER This order will dispose of the above titled two appeals as both has arisen out of the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. at Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 87/SC/1991. This complaint was filed by the present respondent in Appeal No. 273 of 1992. M/s. Mona Confectionery Industries (hereinafter referred to as complainant) against the U.P. State Electricity Board (for short the Board) and some of its Officers. Appeal No. 478 of 1992 has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties. By the impugned order the State Commission has directed the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant by31st August, 1992failingwhichthesaidamount is to bear interest at the rate of 16% per annum from 1st September, 1992 till payment.

THE complaint had been filed by the complainant through its sole proprietor, Shri Ratish Mohan Agarwal. His case is that the complainant unit is a registered small scale industry in the District Industry Centre, Dehradun. The complainant took a huge amount of loan of Rs. 28,02,000/- from the U.P. State Financial Corporation and invested in it his own money to the extent of Rs. 12,86,000/-and established the industry and installed the machinery in the unit at Ravi Pokhrj. The unit was established for manufacturing sweets and toffees. In view of the demand and supply there was every likelihood of heavy consumption of the products. To run the unit the complainant submitted an application to the officers of the Board for 40 H.P. electricity connection on 17th September, 1986 along with receipt of necessary charges of Rs. 25/-. In March, 1988 orders were issued by the then Chief Minister of U.P. to the Board to supply electricity to the complainant unit on priority basis. An order to this effect was also issued by the Minister of State for Petroleum, Union of India. However, the same was overlooked by the Officers of the Board. The Joint Secretary of the Board also wrote a letter to the Assistant Engineer (opposite party No. 1) to give power connection to the Unit on priority on departmental basis. The complainant was directed to deposit advance security and line expenses amounting to Rs. 14,176/-. The said amount was deposited by the complainant on 5th October, 1989 in the Board''s office. The complainant was further directed to deposit Rs. 150/- in the account of Electricity Supervisor. The complainant deposited the said amount on 23rd September, 1988 vide Challan No. A-27. Despite due compliance of all the directions of the Board and its officers the complainant has not been given the electricity connection so far. Oral prayers were made repeatedly by the complainant to the Board and its Officer for the electricity connection, but no action was taken. For want of power connection the production could not be started in the complainant''s unit, though the complainant had arranged to instal the machinery in October, 1988 to commence the production. A notice dated 28th June, 1989 who served upon the Board by the complainant through a lawyer, but despite that connection was not given to the complainant till the filing of the complaint in July, 1989. Apart from suffering from loss in terms of interest, the complainant was informed by the U.P. State Financial Corporation vide letter dated 15th March, 1988 that in case the instalment and interest was not deposited by 31st March, 1989, the Corporation would taken over the unit. The complainant further alleged that he has suffered the loss amounting to Rs. 6,85,072.92 on the following counts: (i) Loss in terms of interest on the loan taken from the Financial Corporation from 1st November, 1988 to 12th July, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 1,175.77 daily per day. (ii) Loss of net profit from November, 1988 to 12th July, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 1,459.67 per day. The complainant prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 6,85,072.92 alongwith future amount of Rs. 2,635.44 per day from 13th July, 1989 till the date electricity connection is given.

The opposite parties filed a joint counter contesting the claim of the complainant. It was admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs. 25/- as earnest money on 17th September, 1984 for registration to get sanction of electricity connection but it was pleaded that he did not submit the proper application as specified and, therefore, no action was taken. Subsequently, the complainant made proper application only on 18th July, 1987 for grant of 40 H.P. electricity connection. Before the application could be considered, the State Government put a ban on release of new load/connections wide order dated 26th August, 1987. This ban was subsequently relaxed on 7th March, 1988 by the State Government. The Regional Power Distribution Committee sanctioned the load to several firms including the complainant by means of order dated 28th March, 1988. After the sanction of the load, the opposite parties made survey and prepared estimate and by means of their letter dated 3rd August, 1988 informed the complainant to deposit the estimated amount and to complete other formalities including submission of B and L form till 3rd September, 1988. The complainant, however, completed some of the formalities on 5th September, 1988 but he did not complete all the formalities and did not submit the B and L form. Somehow, on 5th September, 1988 an agreement was executed and on the next day i.e. 6th September, 1988 directions were issued to Sub-Divisional Officer to complete all the formalities regarding the electric connection and to send information to the Executive Engineer. Prompt action was taken as the complainant was an influential person. However, even thereafter the complainant did not submit the B and L form. Letter dated 6th September, 1988 was not final order for giving electric connection as it would be given only after documents/formalities were completed. B and L forms are very important and so long as these documents were not on record connection could not be given. By means of letter dated 3rd August, 1988 and 6th September, 1988 the complainant was asked to submit B and L form, but he did not take any immediate action. The complainant tried to deceive the opposite party by submitting the B and L forms only for Light and Fan on 25th October, 1988. During the course of completion of formalities the Sub-Division Officer came to know that B and L forms for power were not submitted. He told the complainant to bring it. The Sub-Divisional Officer also wrote a letter on 26th April, 1989 requiring the complainant to file said form. The complainant submitted the said B and L form bearing the date of 30th April, 1989 to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 1st May, 1989 and on the samy day the said officer forwarded the said B and L form to the Divisional Engineer for verification. The B and L forms are declarations to the effect that motor fittings and wirings are complete. The complainant produced the challan of deposit of Rs. 150/- before the Sub-Divisional Officer only on 6th June, 1989. After satisfying that the formalities were complete and verified the Sub-Divisional Officer prepared his report dated 19th June, 1989 and produced it before the Executive Engineer on 23rd June, 1989, who after considering the report ordered the Junior Engineer (Meter) to get the meter installed at the factory vide letter dated 28th June, 1989. The Junior Engineer (Meter) visited the premises of the complainant and found that the initial work was not complete. He directed the complainant to complete the work. The complainant thereon pressurised the Junior Engineer who on 24th August, 1989 installed the meter. However, even upto that day the initial work was not complete. The Junior Engineer made an entry that the meter was installed but could not be checked due to non-connection of supply because of non-completion of internal wiring. The work was completed on 25th August, 1989 and the supply and connection was given on the same date and 28th June, 1989, the Junior Engineer checked the meter and submitted his report.

THE State Commission had earlier disposed of the case on 15th February, 1992 and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.48,000/-by way of compensation for non-supplying the necessary load within time. Aggrieved by that order the opposite party preferred an appeal before this Commission. This Commission set aside the order of the State Commission and remanded the case for fresh decision after permitting the opposite parties to file their written statement. Thereafter the impugned order was passed by the State Commission on 10th May, 1992. Feeling aggrieved by that order, both the parties have filed these separate appeals. The opposite parties pray for setting aside that order while the complainant prays for compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per month from 25th October, 1988 to 28th August, 1989 on account of damages/loss said to have been suffered by him.

BEFORE we proceed further we may mention here that it is not clear if the complainant had filed a rejoinder to the counter before the State Commission. However, before this Commission he has filed reply to the memorandum of appeal. It was pleaded that the application for sanctioning of power load was made and Rs. 25/- as earnest money was deposited. However, that application for getting the sanction of power load was lost by the department and the complainant was pressurised to file a fresh set of application for sanction of the power load on 18th July, 1987 (in triplicate). The Sub-Divisional Officer on 18th July, 1987 put in recommendations on the face of the said application for sanction of the power load. It was admitted that the ban for releasing of new connection was imposed on 26th August, 1987butitwaspleaded that there was no reason for releasing the connection before that date in the face of the recommendations of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said ban was lifted by the Government on 5th March, 1988. When the Board and their Officers did not pay heed in granting the power connection to the complainant, he approached the Secretary of the U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow through the Regional Member of Parliament. The Joint Secretary of the Board wrote to the Superintending Engineer, Dehradun on 22nd March, 1988 to sanction 40 H.P. connection to the complainant and also ordered that the same be released on highest priority. Even thereafter no load connection was granted. Though the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed vide letter dated 23rd April, 1988, by the Chief Zonal Engineer to prepare the estimate within three days and send it to the Executive Engineer, Distributing Division No. 1, and the said estimate was prepared within time, but no further action was taken. The complainant pressed very much the said officer for the grant of connection. Vide letter dated 3rd August, 1988 the Executive Engineer issued new connection order and the complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,172/- in lieu of security and installation charges by 3rd September, 1989. In that letter there was no mention of submission of any B and L form. Though the said amount could not be deposited on 3rd September, 1988, but after obtaining due permission the said amount was deposited on 5th September, 1988 and an agreement was executed between the complainant and the department. Vide letter dated 6th September, 1988 the Executive Engineer pressed the Sub-Divisional Officer to carry out the work in accordance with the estimate submitted and sanctioned with an intimation to the complainant to deposit Rs. 150/-beingElectrical Inspector''s fees for inspection. The B and L form was submitted on 25th October, 1988 which indicated 36.5 H.P. for power load and 3.5 H.P. for light and fan load-total 40 H.P. and it was duly checked and verified by the Junior Engineer and was authenticated by the Electrical Contractor and as well as by the complainant. The complainant has denied the receipt of the letter dated 26th April, 1989 and the authenticity of the B and L form bearing the date 30th April, 1989. According to the complainant this B and L form has been got fabricated by the Board. The challan relating to the deposit of Rs. 150/- was deposited with the Board on 23rd September, 988. However, it appears that on 30th May, 1989 the Sub-Divisional Officer sent his representative to the Office of the Inspector (Electrical Security) and obtained a certificate about the deposit of Rs. 150/-. On receipt of the letter from the Assistant Engineer (Meter) the complainant had purchased one new meter for installation in the premises but later on the said meter was rejected by he Assistant Engineer (Meter) and on 28th August, 1989 the said Assistant Engineer installed the departmental meter and the power connection was granted. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The question to be decided in these appeals is whether the B and L form for power load was submitted on 25th October, 1988 as claimed by the complainant or on 1st May, 1989asalleged by the opposite party. The argument of the complainant is that in the B and L form submitted on 25th October, 1988 it is clearly mentioned that 36.5. H.P. load and 3.5. H.P. light load-total 40 H.P. was required and that form was duly checked by the Board''s Officers. The opposite parties contention is that the said form was only for lights and fans while duly filled from both for power and light was submitted on 1st may, 1989.

AFTER careful consideration of the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the contention of the opposite parties (i.e. appellants in Appeal No. 273/92) appears to be worthy of acceptance. At page 70 of the paper book (Appeal No. 273/92) is a letter on the letterhead of Mona Confectionery Industries signed by R.M. Agarwal. Of course that letter does not bear any date. In that letter it is written that "I have completed the fittings in connection with the electricity. The form could not be deposited in Dehradun Electricity Office and I am presenting in your office the said form for fittings of light and power. The prayer was made that kindly give connection immediately". That letter is addressed to Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity Distribution Sub-Division, Dehradun. On that letter there is an endorsement dated 1st May, 1989 by some Officer of the Electricity Board to the effect "forwarded in original the B and L form dated 30th April, 1989 for verification and report". It may be mentioned here that on 28th April, 1989 the complainant was written a letter by an Officer of the Board (the designation of the officer is not legible). That letter, (which is at page 65 of the paperbook of Appeal No. 273/ 92) is in the following terms : "You are requested to produce the B and L form necessarily required for the very good advancement of the departmental procedure to meet out."

THE complainant has denied the fact that he had received the letter dated 26th April, 1989. However, that letter bears the despatch number and it looks very doubtful that the Board''s Officers had fabricated the letter. Another thing to be noticed is that the complainant has not explained at what point of time he had submitted the letter which is page 70 of the paper book (referred to above). It is not his case that he had submitted that letter with the B and L form originally submitted by him on 25th October, 1988. It is not possible to accept the suggestion that to commit forgery the Department traced out that letter from the file and then made the endorsement date 1st May, 1989. It would not be out of place to mention here that the contractor engaged by the complainant signed that B and L form on 30th April, 1989 (at page 69). The said Contractor, in reply to the department''s letter wrote that the B and L form dated 28th October, 1988 was issued by him after light fittings and after completing the wiring for power and motor connection he had given the declaration (i.e. B & L form) on 30th April, 1989. The complainant appears to be a very influential person. He obtained a letter from the Minister of State for Petroleum and Natural Gas, Union of India, dated 6th April, 1988. This letter is addressed to the complainant enclosing a copy of sanction of 40 H.P. industrial connection to the complainant for information. It is the complainant''s own case that he has been approaching the Chief Minister and other senior officers for the electric connection. Surprisingly, he has not produced any documentary evidence on the file to show that after the submission of the B and L form on 25th October, 1988 he pressed the Board or any of its Officers to give the electric connection immediately. If the electric connection was not given soon after the submission of the B and L form on 28th October, 1988 the complainant who appears to be influential would have raised hue and cry. His only contention is that he has been approaching the officers and orally pressing them to give him the electric connection after the submission of the said B and L form in October, 1988. For the first time he had given a notice in writing to the Department vide a letter on 28th June, 1989 and soon thereafter the complaint was filed. It is to be noticed that in the said notice it is not prayed that the department may be directed to give him the electric connection. Only damages have been claimed.

AFTER receipt of the B and L form the Sub-Divisional Officer wrote a letter No. 664/M-6 dated 19.6.89 (at page 72) to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Dehradun. In this letter it is mentioned that the B and L form verified by the Junior Engineer was attached with that letter and an indent for installation of meter be placed with the A.E. (Dehradun). On 28th June, 1989 the Assistant Engineer (State) of Executive Engineer wrote a letter (at page 76) to the Assistant Engineer (Meter). Subject is given as "M/s. Mona Confectionery, Ravi Pokhri regarding installation of meter of 40 H.P. Electricity Connection". The Assistant Engineer was asked to inform the Executive Engineer''s Office after arranging the instalment for connection of 40 H.P. to Mona Confectionery. As noticed above on 24th August, 1989 the meter could not be checked for want of connecting supply (that report is at page 73 of the paperbook). The meter was checked on 28th August, 1989 vide report at page 74.

AN noticed above the notice was given by the complainant on 28th June, 1989. Letter dated 19th June, 1989 already referred to above was despatched before the issue of the complainant''s notice. We are not prepared to believe that all these letters are forged or fabricated. In view of the above discussion we find that there has been no delay in giving electric connection to the complainant and the Board and its Officers cannot be held guilty of any negligence or deficiency in rendering of service. Consequently, the Appeal No. 273/92 is liable to be accepted while Appeal No. 478 / 92 filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly and set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission. In the circumstances we leave the parties to bear their own costs.