Sanjay Bafna vs Vijay P Aher

IT is not in dispute that the complainant applied for allotment of MIG category, house at Shamshabad Residential Complex, Phase III under hire purchase agreement and paid necessary tentative cost and fulfilled the formalities. On 7.6.90 the opposite party delivered the physical possession of the said house to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party has to provide water supply, drainage and electricity, that while delivering the possession of the house, the opposite party promised that it would provide electricity very soon. Thereafter inspite of several oral requests and written reminders, dated 31.7.90, 12.9.90, and 17.9.90 as evidenced by Exs. A -5 to A -7, the opposite party did not charge/energise the electricity line to the complainant house. He occupied the promises on 7.6.90 with the hope that the opposite party would energise the line. As no power was given, as he could not live in darkness, he vacated the house on 1.12.90 and took a house on rent in Navodaya Colony, Gudi Malkapur, Hyderabad. He, therefore, claimed for a direction to the opposite party to provide electricity connection to his house and also for compensation of Rs. 20,000/ - with costs.

THE opposite party in their counter stated that they entrusted the work of providing electricity to Sri Khaja Moinuddin, contractor on 30.1.87. After the completion of about 90% of work as there were some petitions against the contractor the vigilance department took away the connected records of the work. Thereupon the contractor took away the transformers erected by him earlier and the electrical engineers who were working with the opposite party on deputation from A.P.S.E.B. were re -patriated. It is further stated that on 20.11.91, the Vice Chairman of the opposite party conducted meeting with the Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer of A.P.S.E.B. to sort out the problem of rectification works for energisation. The A.P.S.E.B. is preparing the estimate for rectification works and erection of transformers etc. On receipt of sanctioned estimate from the APSEB, the amount of the estimate will be deposited with the APSEB for completing the work and charging the lines and the matter is being pursued with the APSEB vigorously for expediting the work of energisation. Before the District Forum Exs. A -1 to A7 were marked. On a consideration of the evidence on record and as in the counter filed by the opposite party itself they have admitted that the lines were not energised and they are pursuing the matter vigorously with A.P.S.E. Board, the District Forum held that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. It accordingly directed payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/ -p.m. from 1.12.91 and also costs of Rs. 1,000/ -.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the opposite party has been taking all the necessary steps to provide electricity. According to them as early as 1987 the work was entrusted to the contractor, but due to some reasons beyond the control of the opposite party, there was some complaint against the contractor, he did not proceed with the completion of the entire work and took away the transformers and therefore they are vigorously pursuing the matter with the Electricity Board to get the connection. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the failure to provide electricity is not due to any wanton negligence on the part of the opposite party. But the delay was on account of the previous contractor ceasing to work and removing the transformers. It therefore, cannot be said that there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. We are not prepared to accept this contention in toto. According to the terms of the contract, the opposite party has to provide water and electricity. The possession was given as early as 7.6.90. But for more than 2 years, the electricity connection was not provided to the complainants house. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint after a period of two years i.e. 1992. Even then the opposite party did not provide the power supply to the complainant. No doubt, the failure to provide the power supply may be due to other circumstances, but as the opposite party is bound to provide the power supply under the terms of the allotment, we consider that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

WITH regard to quantum of compensation, the District Forum awarded Rs. 500/ - p.m. But having regard to the circumstances of the case, and the delay was due to the contractor taking away the transformers and not completing the entire work and as the opposite party is pursuing the matter vigorously with the A.P.S.E.B. and as they are prepared to deposit the amount with APSEB, we consider that payment of compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - would meet the ends of justice.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation is reduced from Rs.500/ - p.m. to a lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,000/ -. The costs of Rs. 1,000/ - awarded by the District Forum is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs is this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.