Chandravati Yadav vs Chief Electrical Engineer

This revision is directed against the order of the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji (in short, "the State Commission") dated 17.3.2015 in first appeal No. 20/2015 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/complainant against the order of the District Forum resulting in dismissal of his complaint.

Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the complainant raised a consumer dispute alleging that she had been residing at House No. 148/1, Bhaisaka Tabela, Alto Dabolim Junction, Alto Dabolim, Goa since 2003. Despite of an application being moved for providing electricity connection, no connection was granted to her. Ultimately she filed a petition before the Health Officer, Urban Health Centre, Vasco and the Health Care Officer vide his order dated 12th July, 2013 directed the Assistant Engineer of the opposite party electricity supply company to grant power connection to the complainant on payment of the charges purely on health ground. It is the case of the complainant that despite of the orders passed by the Health Officer, the opposite party did not provide the electricity connection promptly and ultimately the connection was granted to her on 26.2.2014 after a legal notice was served upon the opposite party. It is claimed that by delaying the electricity connection, the opposite party has committed deficiency in service, which entitles the complainant to compensation.

The District Forum, South Goa on consideration of the complaint did not find merit in the complaint and dismissed it vide its order dated 20.8.2014.

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/complainant filed an appeal and the appeal was dismissed vide impugned order. This has led to filing of the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the orders of the Foras below suffer from material irregularity because the Foras below have failed to appreciate that despite of a direction issued by the Health Officer in terms of Section 94A(1) (a) of the GDD Public Health Act, 1985 the opposite party avoided to grant electricity connection to the complainant, which was granted with a considerable delay when a legal notice was served on the opposite party and this amounts to deficiency in service.

We do not find merit in the above contention. On perusal of copy of the order of the Health Officer communicated to the Assistant Engineer of the opposite party we find that the Health Officer had directed the opposite party to grant electricity connection to the petitioner subject to her bearing necessary charges for connection. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show us any evidence which may indicate that pursuant to this order the petitioner had visited the office of the opposite party and offered to pay the connection charges. In absence of any offer on the part of the petitioner to pay the connection charges the opposite party cannot be held guilty of delaying the electricity connection. Thus, we find no infirmity in the concurrent finding of the Foras dismissing the complaint. Otherwise also, till electricity connection was provided to the complainant, there could be no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties, which relationship came into existence on grant of electricity connection. Thus for delay in grant of connection pursuant to the order of Health Officer relationship the petitioner could not have filed a consumer complaint and her remedy was only to proceed under GDD Public Health Act, 1985 for seeking compliance of the order of the Health Officer.

In view of the discussion above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Foras below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.