AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
BOTH these appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.5.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faizabad in Complaint Case No. 142/1991.
THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant booked 5 horse power electric connection in the month of June, 1976 and an agreement was entered into between the parties as usual. In accordance with the agreement, the connection was energised which was used by the complainant upto 1.2.1990. On this date one of the poles fell down on account of which there was interruption in the supply of electricity. A report of this incident was lodged in the Power Station, Gosainganj at Faizabad. Another complaint in the form of a reminder was lodged on 15.2.1990. According to the complainant, opposite party No. 1, Lallan Pandey, Junior Engineer asked him to spend some money and only then the line can be energised. Inspite of the objections of the complainant Lallan Pandey, Junior Engineer with the assistance of other opposite parties, took away the wires and poles. THE complaint of this fact was lodged by the complainant by registered post to the Power Minister and other officers. Superintending Engineer etc. were also informed on 6.6.1990. A news-item was also published in ''Jan Morcha'' on 9th July, 1990. THEreafter another complaint was sent by registered post to the Superintending Engineer, Distribution Division-II on 11.8.1990, but of no effect. According to the complainant the opposite parties are liable to supply un-interrupted power to him in pursuance of the agreement. In the absence of electricity, he is suffering a lot as his standing crop in the year 1990 could not be watered. Hence it was destroyed. Thereafter since February, 1990 till today the complainant has suffered heavy loss and has claimed a sum of Rs. 82,550/- as damages alongwith 6% per annum interest till the electric lines are laid and the supply of electricity is resumed.
Opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 have filed one joint written statement. Opposite party No. 1 is Lallan Pandey, Junior Engineer. Opposite party No. 3 is Sri A.N. Singh, ASDO, Electricity Division and opposite party No. 4 is Sri Kamlesh Behari, Superintending Engineer, Distribution Division-II. They have alleged that the distribution of electricity in II Division at Faizabad is not in the control of opposite party No. 1-Lallan Pandey because he is liable for maintenance upto Gosainganj only. It is wrong to say that any talk of complainant took place with Sri Kamla Prasad. It is further alleged that opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been wrongly implicated as parties.
OPPOSITE party Nos. 2 and 6 Sri Phool Chand, Superintending Engineer and Chairman, State Electricity Board, Lucknow have admitted that the connection was given to the complainant. The electric line laid to the complainant''s place was under the Rural Electrification Scheme in the year 1971-72 and 48 wooden poles were fixed for this purpose. It is further alleged that the electric supply was only possible through wooden poles. Two other persons were also given electricity from this line. The wooden poles fell down on account of being destroyed. The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that the electric poles and wires were removed by opposite party No. 1-Lallan Pandey. With this finding the learned District Forum decreed the claim of the complainant and directed the opposite parties to energise the line within one month from the date of the order and ordered for payment of Rs. 2,000/- as cost.
AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, both the parties filed the appeals and have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Electricity Board has argued that this connection was energised in the year 1976. Out of 48 poles, 30 poles were inside the lake and they were wooden poles. This electric connection was given under Rural Electrification Scheme for which an estimate of Rs. 5,000/- was prepared. According to the learned Counsel all the poles fell down on account of hail-storm, after having served for 15 years. According to the learned Counsel if all these poles were to be erected in the year 1990, then the estimated expenditure would have been Rs. 2,22,000/- which will make huge drain on the exchequer. We are not concerned as to what expenditure will have to be borne by the Electricity Department. Once there was an electric connection, it was the bounden duty of the Electricity Department to have kept the lines in a running condition. If on account of certain hail-storm and other factors, the wooden poles fell down, it was the duty of the Electricity Department to have replaced all those poles. The complainant has alleged that only one pole has fell down on account of which there was interruption in the electricity supply. No doubt in the written statement it was mentioned that the poles are in the water, but there is no mention of these poles being wooden and how these poles were installed in the lake, and whether these poles were fixed in the lake on some support or otherwise. When there is no mention of wooden poles in the written statement, it cannot be believed that the wooden poles were used by the Electricity Department. Even if wooden poles are used by the Electricity Department, it was their own concern and it was not the duty of the complainant to see how electricity is supplied to the complainant. It has not been mentioned in the evidence or in the written statement what was the depth of the lake and how these poles were installed. In water the poles cannot be installed without making concrete pillars and the poles are embedded in the concrete pillars or they are fixed by screws. It cannot be said that these poles are fixed in the water without taking any precaution. Everybody knows that the wooden poles cannot survive in water for a long period. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that it was the duty of opposite party No. 1 to lookafter this line because the letters were consistently written to him for upkeep of the line. Letter dated 19.7.1990 written by Sri Phool Chand, Executive Engineer to Executive Engineer, Electricity Division-II, Faizabad with respect to this line shows that "it is to remind you to kindly arrange for the maintenance of 11 K.V. Arki and Tarapur Feeder as they are under your jurisdiction". Thereafter copy of another letter dated 15.4.1991 written by Sri R.P. Dwivedi, Executive Engineer to Executive Engineer, Distribution Division goes to show that the inspection of the line of the complainant was got done and it was found that the 11 K.V. Feeder comes out of 33.11 K.V. Gosainganj line. This letter also goes to show that in this line 27 poles and entire electric wire are missing. It is further mentioned that this line is maintained by Lallan Pandey who is opposite party No. 1 in the complaint. Instructions were given for an enquiry in this matter. The next letter is dated 20.4.1991 written by some Executive Engineer to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Khand, Akbarpur, Faizabad. It was requested by this letter that a definite order be passed under whose control this line falls. The next letter is also written by Sri R.P. Dwivedi, the same Executive Engineer dated 20.4.1990. It goes to show that the material of above 3 K.V. line has disappeared. The next letter is dated 21.4.1991 by the same Engineer Sri R.P. Dwivedi mentioning therein that on 17.2.1990 a meeting was held before the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Faizabad in the presence of the complainant. At that meeting a decision was taken that this feeder shall be maintained by the Superintending Engineer, II Division, Faizabad. This fact was intimated to all concerned. It was further mentioned in this letter that from the very beginning, Junior Engineer Sri Lallan Pandey is looking after the maintenance of this line. It was requested that the line be got energised through the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Faizabad.
IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the Electricity Department that all the poles fell down at one time due to hail-storm. This fact is not alleged in the written statement, copy of which has been supplied by the learned Counsel. IT has merely been stated that the electric supply passes through a very big ''Jheel'' which is always full of water. This line was laid down in the year 1971-72 on electric poles. IT has been specifically mentioned in para 8 of the written statement that on account of ageing due to being installed in water, these poles fell down during the period of 18 to 20 years. On account of this fact the electricity was disconnected. Thus the allegation in the written statement clearly goes to show that the electric poles did not fell down during the hail-storm but they fell within 18-20 years of their installation. This fact has been given in the written statement filed by opposite party Nos. 2 and 6.
IT may be mentioned here that opposite party No. 6 is the Chairman of the Electricity Board and opposite party No. 2 is the Executive Engineer of the Electricity Department. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Electricity Board that these poles fell down during the hail-storm is not supported by the evidence on record. According to the complainant only one pole fell for which he made a complaint to the Electricity Board. Those complaints have not been put before the District Forum by the opposite parties. Therefore, the facts on record go to show that the version of the complainant is true that only one pole was damaged when the complaint was made by the complainant and the story about the damage of 48 poles has now been concocted by the opposite parties in order to justify their action and to show that a huge expenditure is involved in the repair of this line. The evidence on record shows that about 3 miles long line wires and poles are missing. Who has taken away these poles and wires has not been brought on record by the opposite parties. The assertion of the complainant that this act has been done by some of the opposite parties in collusion with Lallan Pandey, opposite party No. 1 on the basis of evidence can be said to be correct. The evidence on record also goes to show that the line was being maintained by Lallan Pandey who is opposite party No. 1 in the complaint. It appears that all these poles and electric wires have been taken away by someone in collusion with Junior Engineer Sri Lallan Pandey.
It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Electricity Department that a huge expenditure is likely to be incurred if a new installation is done. We are not concerned with this aspect of the matter. It is the duty of the Electricity Board to give electric connection to the consumer. If one pole would have been replaced at that time, when the complaint was made, then the present expenditure could have been avoided because at present the line is missing for 3 kms. It is for the Electricity Board to fix the responsibility of the person concerned, as to who has done this and has harassed the complainant and to recover the estimated expenditure from the person responsible for this episode.
INSPITE of having given the information to the office, no action was taken for energizing the line of the complainant. This conduct cannot be approved because high officers are sitting there to control the unlawful activity of their juniors and to see that they work properly. The result of this discussion is that the appeal filed by the Electricity Board is liable to be dismissed.
NOW we come to the appeal which has been filed by the complainant. The complainant in his appeal has claimed a sum of Rs. 82,550/- as compensation alongwith 6% per annum interest. The learned District Forum in the judgment has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. In our opinion this is not adequate. The complainant should get a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with 6% interest in view of the facts of this case. The complainant shall also get a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as cost of both these appeals. Let copy of this judgment be sent to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Sri R.K. Narayanan, by name for taking necessary action as may be deemed fit against the guilty employees. Order Appeal No. 600/1992 filed by the Electricity Department is dismissed and Appeal No. 528/1992 filed by the complainant is allowed partly. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum is modified to the extent that damages against the Electricity Department is decreed for Rs. 25,000/- alongwith 6% per annum interest from the date of complaint till the date of payment. The rest of the order of the learned District Forum is confirmed with above modification. It is further directed that the line of the complainant should be energised within a period of one month from the date of this order. The Electricity Department shall pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as cost of both these appeals to the complainant. The judgment shall be kept in the file of Appeal No. 592/1992 and a certified copy of it shall be placed on the records of Appeal No. 600/1992 which shall also be governed by this judgment. Compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Ordered accordingly.