BIMAL PARSHAD JAIN vs CHAIRMAN, HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hissar dismissing the complaint inter alia on the ground of the suppression of material facts.

IT was averred in the complaint that Electricity Account No. A4/1034 for his H. No. 613/12, had been obtained by the complainant. He had received a bill for electricity charges of Rs. 844/94 paise which was duly paid on the 20th of November, 1992, but to his anguish his energy connection was disconnected on the 24th of November, 1992 without notice and without assigning any reason. Serious allegations were levelled against Shri R.S. Chugh, the Sub Divisional Officer of the respondent-Board for the said action and it was suggested that this was done simply to harass the consumer and a grievance was raised that the house was lying in darkness since the date of disconnection to the discomfiture of the complainant who was claimed to be a serious heart patient. An irreparable loss and damage due to the action of the respondent department was alleged and heavy compensation sought. In resolutely defending the complaint, the respondent Board first took up the threshold plea that the complaint was not maintainable because of the patent concealment of material facts. It was pointed out that the residential house of the consumer had been provided with two separate connections bearing No. A-4/1034 connected with the Nagori Gate feeder and another account bearing No. A-4/1040, connected with Jahanpur feeder. It was the firm allegation that the appellant had clandestinely provided a change-over switch for the two points of electric supply in direct contravention of the rules. Not only that such contravention can be patently dangerous and even fatal to the Linesmen of the Board who service the electricity lines after switching off a particular electricity line. It was firmly the case that on the 24th of November the premises of the appellant were checked by Shri R.S. Chugh, an S.D.O. of the Board alongwith the assisting staff and the change over switch was found installed in order to effect the supply of the electricity from one feeder to the other in the event of the failure from one side.

The District Forum apparently noticed a patent suppression of facts on behalf of the complainant. Consequently, it issued a notice to their Counsel but instead of filing any replication or clarifying the factual situation, the complainant moved an application seeking the prosecution of Shri R.S. Chugh.

THE District Forum placing reliance on II (1992) CPJ 632, Sushil Kumar v. Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, held that apart from merits, the appellant had not come to the Redressal Agency with clean hands and inter alia on this ground, dismissed the complaint. Mr. N.K. Jain, the authorised representative of the appellant being a layman was merely vociferous but unable to pose any challenge worth the name to the order under appeal. It was argued that even though the appellants had joined or connected the two distinct feeders of electric supply in their house, the same was not unauthorised.

WE are unable to find any merit in the submission of Mr. N.K. Jain despite his persistence. It deserves highlighting that it was conceded before us that there were in fact two distinct electricity connections served from two different feeders in the same residential house of the appellant. Rather curiously it was argued that because of the large family, there was some partitioning of accommodation and in the event of the failure of the electricity from one source, the same was joined with a loose wire from the other. This being so, this concession gives the lie direct to the appellant''s case. The District Forum was right in its conclusion that the material fact of their being two separate electric connections and a change over switch or in any case a connection of the two sources of supply had been patently suppressed in the complaint. On behalf of the respondent, it has been rightly highlighted that the premises of the appellant were duly checked by a responsible officer of the Board in discharge of the duty on the 24th of November, 1992 and a detailed report with regard thereto was rendered. Mr. Chugh had supported his report with a detailed affidavit on the record. The said evidence was not even sought to be challenged by way of cross-examination nor the authenticity of the report was questioned. In that event, the same provides conclusive evidence against the appellant and on the basis of the admission made by the authorised representative before us, a cast iron case against the appellant is raised. It was again not in serious dispute that a notice dated the 2nd of November, 1992 was issued to the appellants on the basis of the report of Mr. Chugh and apparently as a counter-blast there to, the present complaint was lodged shortly thereafter. On behalf of the respondent, firm reliance was placed on condition No. 8 of the terms of supply duly executed betwixt the consumer and the Board. This condition obviously prohibits any tinkering'' with the electricity equipment and Mr. Jain could not remotely draw our attention to any thing which can authorise the installation of a change-over switch or what is in his own words was a connection of the two feeders with a loose wire. It has been rightly pointed out on behalf of the respondent that not only was the conduct of the appellant contrary to the rules and the terms and conditions but extremely dangerous. It is evident that by such a connection the electric current would pass from one feeder to the other when one of them has been switched off by the Board for repairs or maintenance. The Lineman working on such a line on the assumption that the same was disconnected, would thus face the hazard by a sudden charging of the electric line which could even proof fatal. The grievance made on behalf of the respondent is thus more than patent and established on the present record. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed. We would have burdened the appellant with costs but taking a somewhat charitable view, we refrain from doing so against a consumer. Appeal dismissed.