Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs NARAYAN PRASAD

THIS is an appeal directed against the order passed on 30.4.2004 by the District Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter referred to as ''the District Forum'') in Complaint No. 57/203 directing opposite party/appellant to pay Rs. 5,000/- as deficiency in service along with interest and Rs. 500/- as cost of the complaint.

COMPLAINANT is a marginal farmer and had obtained a temporary electric connection from the appellant for 5 HP load in August 2002 for a period of 3 months after payment of necessary charges. Although the said connection was sanctioned up to 31.10.2002 it was disconnected on 25.10.2002. The complainant orally enquired from the lineman as well as the Assistant Engineer (Rural) and being dissatisfied with the reply made a written complaint in the office of the appellant/opposite party on 28.10.2002. It is further averred that since power supply was not restored despite efforts, the crop in the field badly in need of water suffered and was destroyed. He has prayed for award of Rs. 75,000/- towards damages to the crop and cost of the complaint, etc. The complainant has filed the copies of money receipt for the amount deposited for obtaining the connection, letter dated 28.10.2002 addressed to the appellant, notice dated 17.2.2003 and postal receipt. The appellant/O.P. in his written reply has narrated that a temporary electric connection was sanctioned to the complainant from 3.8.2002 to 1.10.2002 for 5 HP motor and it was extended up to 31.10.2002. The said connection was disconnected on 31.10.2002 since no further extension was applied for. The appellants have further averred that the complainant suffered no loss and, therefore, there is no question of any compensation.

In support of his contention, the appellant has filed copies of the lineman''s report regarding disconnection, copies of the application for obtaining the connection and reply to the notice.

DURING the hearing of the complaint before the Forum the appellant/O.P. filed an application on 27.1.2004 praying for getting the electric meter checked for another separate electric connection granted to the complainant alleging that the glass of the said meter was broken and the meter was interfered with. It was alleged that since the complainant was issued a notice regarding the said connection, he had filed the present complaint to put pressure on the appellants. The complainant/respondent filed the copies of the Panchnama signed by several persons of the village that the meter and the glass was intact. Since the application was totally unconnected with the complainant and referred to altogether a different cause of action arising several months after the complaint was filed, the District Forum disallowed the application. The learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned order that the electric line was disconnected on 30.10.2002 as reported by the lineman. As such there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant and prayed for quashing the impugned order. The Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and prayed that it be affirmed. It was vehemently argued that the appellants have resorted to creation of false documents to justify illegal disconnection. Attention was drawn to copy of the register at page 52 of the District Forum''s record mentions the date of disconnection as 31.10.2002 while the same is signed by the Assistant Engineer on 30.9.2002.

THE only question to be decided whether the electric connection was disconnected on 25.10.2002, i.e., before the expiry of the period for which it was sanctioned. The complainant has filed his own affidavit and also that of Mahadeo Sinha, and Laxman Sonkar both agriculturists of the same village confirm date of disconnection as 25.10.2002 of the electric pump from the fields of the complainant adjacent to the river. The affidavits also say that they carried back the electric pump the same day. The acknowledgement of the complaint made to the Assistant Engineer''s office dated 28.10.2002 also confirms the same. Both the above papers leave no doubt as regards the date of disconnection being 25.10.2002. Therefore, in view of the above we are of the opinion that the appellant did commit deficiency by disconnecting the electric connection and have caused loss to the respondent. The impugned order appears to be a just and proper order and deserves to be and is hereby affirmed.

APPEAL is dismissed. APPEAL dismissed.