EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL, KENDRAPADAAppella vs NARAYAN CHANDRA SWAIN

THIS is an appeal by the Executive Engineer, Kendrapada Electrical Division No. 1 against the judgment of the District Forum, Kendrapada directing payment of compensation and refund of security deposit of Rs. 5,652/- along with 18 per cent interest from 24.5.1999 till payment.

HE wanted to avail power supply to his newly installed L.I. Point in his village Dhumat on his land particulars of which have been given in tHE complaint petition. THE appellant granted permission on 20.5.1999 asking tHE complainant to make tHE security deposit which tHE complainant did on 24.5.199. THE amount of security was Rs. 5,652/-, while is tHE case of tHE complainant that in spite of depositing tHE security amount tHE matter was delayed for about a year during which period for non-supply of power to tHE L.I. Point crops grown by him were destroyed and HE suffered loss, it is tHE case of tHE department that though tHE complainant deposited tHE security amount HE did not come forward to execute tHE agreement for which tHE power supply could not be given. Heard Mr. B.K. Nayak, the learned Counsel for the appellant Executive Engineer and Mr. P.K. Routray, the learned Counsel for the complainant. Perused the impugned order and materials on record.

Mr. Nayak has drawn out attention to the materials on record particularly to the departments permission dated 20.5.199. With regard to this letter Mr. Nayak submitted that the complainant was required to execute an agreement. But we are of the view that the letter amply proves, the department asking the complainant to deposit the security deposit which the complainant did on 24.5.199. We are unable to accept the case of the department as pleaded by Mr. Nayak that complainant did not come forward to execute the agreement. It cannot be said that the complainant should ask the department by approaching them in the office to execute the agreement, rather it was incumbent on the part of the department that after the complainant deposited the security money on 24.5.1999 the complainant should have been asked to come and sign the agreement. Not a scrap of paper is available to indicate this.

IT is the further contention of Mr. Nayak that during the Super Cyclone on 29.10.1999 the entire set-up for connection to the L.I. Point of the complainant and others were damages and it has not been possible to make good the loss caused to the department by the cyclone. We are also not inclined to accept this explanation. No reason has been assigned why no steps were taken for supplying the line from 24.5.199 onwards till 29.10.1999 when the complainant had deposited the security amount. Certainly there are lapses on the part of the department during this period. Be that as it may, the complainant has not come forward with a prayer for restoration of the supply line but he has sought for refund of the security and compensation amount. Therefore, whether presently there is feasibility of supplying the connection of the L.I. Point of the complainant is not a matter for decision.

MR. Nayak has highlighted Clause 22 of the Regulation Code, 1998 and submitted that it was an error on the part of the District Forum to award interest on the security amount. We have carefully gone through the clause. The clause is meant for the authorities under the Code not to pay interest on the security amount and this is certainly in case of a situation where the security money is sought to be refunded by the complainant. But nowhere the law prohibits the adjudicating agencies for that matter the competency of the Consumer Court to award interest on the security amount when because of the lapses on the part of the authorities in not providing the line in time, the complainant is forced under the circumstances to ask for the refund. Our power to award interest on the money that has been kept back by the department for no justifiable reasons is not deterred by any provision of law. Therefore, we reject the contention of Mr. Nayak on that score. On course awarding of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of crops cannot be sustained in the absence of any material. But the complainant came forward with a specific case that he spent more than about Rs. 10,000/- towards purchase of machinery, etc. We find the same has been supported by an affidavit dated 3.7.2001 by the complainant, that he purchased a 3 H.P. GSC Pump set for Rs. 9,400/- with starter, switch, etc. totalling to Rs. 10,940. The original cash memo is also on record. This is dated 29.5.1999, apparently after the complainant deposited the money towards security on 24.5.1999. He has not been able to avail power. We do not know whether subsequently he has been allowed to draw power to the L.I. Point. But so far these materials are concerned, the complainant certainly purchased the pump-set and its accessories. Therefore, awarding of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be held to be unjust. Atleast it should be taken to be a compensation for mental stress and agony and loss sustained. We accordingly find no merit in the appeal. However, we would like to reduce the rate of interest to 10 per cent per annum to be calculated on the amount of security only as held by the District Forum instead of 18 per cent per annum. The appeal is dismissed. No cost. The order be complied within a month from the date of communication of the order. Appeal dismissed.