DELHI VIDYUT BOARD vs COMPANY LAW CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY

ON account of non-maintenance and repair of the cable lines, transmission, cut-outs and junction boxes and erratic power supply by the appellant company who is provider of energy to the respondent-Cooperative Group Housing Society, the appellant vide impugned order dated 19.6.2001 has been directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 22,840 spent by the respondent towards the cost of material etc. and Rs. 4,012 spent on the installation of the junction box with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and Rs. 5,000 as compensation and cost of litigation.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has directed this appeal. There are about 120 members of the respondent society who were being supplied electricity for domestic use through different connections. The respondent has filed copies of the vouchers as Annexures C-1 to C-8 showing the purchase of equipments, labour charges as there was frequent power breakdown and the complaints of the respondent society fell on deaf ears for long as is demonstrated from the letters and complaints sent to the appellant. There are as many as 50 letters as Annexures B-1 to B-50 sent to the appellant for replacement of faulty equipment, service pillars, cable lines, transmission, junction boxes etc. necessary for the uninterrupted supply of electricity.

It is contended by the Counsel for the appellant that due to paucity of funds the appellant being a Public Sector Power Board was not in a position to replace the cable lines or the transmission, junction boxes etc. though they had attended to the complaints of breakdown as and when made and rectified the defects.

WHATEVER may be the reasons for non-supply of electricity and putting the members of the Society into hardships due to frequent breakdown, the consumers were not concerned whether the appellant had any funds or not. They were only concerned with the proper and effective service of power supply. It is a case of gross deficiency in service which means: any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. In our view the respondent is entitled to refund the amount spent by it towards cost of material and installation of injunction boxes and cost of litigation. The District Forum fell in error by awarding the interest @ 12% p.a. as well as by paying compensation. As per Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum is competent only to award the compensation for the loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence on the part of the O.P. or deficiency in service. Interest is awarded only in those cases where there is a case of contract between the parties. In the result, we allow the appeal partly by maintaining the order that a sum of Rs. 22,840 spent by the respondent towards the cost of material etc. and Rs. 4,012 spent on the intallation of the junction boxes which shall be paid the appellant to the respondent society within 30 days of receipt of this order.

APPEAL is disposed of in aforesaid terms. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties, free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant forthwith under proper receipt. Appeal partly allowed.