Back
Pramila Garg - Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Rajasthan State Electricity Board - Respondent
Decided On : 10/06/1993
Complaint Case No. 53/92
.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) as amended by Sec. 2 of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 - Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Section 2(c) - Consumer - Definition - Complainant submitted an application for providing her with electricity - She is a consumer under the Act despite the fact that the electric connection has not been granted to her - Complaint for delay in providing connection cannot be dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer.
Held: According to the opposite parties the complainant did not become a consumer merely by submitting the application. It was submitted that financial sanction was made on 26.7.1989 as is evident from Annexure-2submitted by the complainant and after the receipt of the sanction on 29.7.1989 demand note was issued. The amount was deposited on 5.9.1989 and it is from 5.9.1989, she became consumer of the opposite parties. The definition of consumer has been amended by S. 2 of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 (now Amendment Act) and by virtue of clause 5 in sub clause (ii) for the word hires, in both the places where it occurs, the words hires or avails of have been substituted. The complainant wanted to avail of the services of the opposite parties and, therefore, she is a consumer under the Act despite the fact that the electric connection has not been granted to her. (Para 8)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) - Deficiency-in-service - Delay in providing electric connection Claim for compensation - Demand note was issued - Complainant completed the formalities -She was asked to execute an agreement When JEN and AEN went to the factory of the complainant several times, it was found locked and therefore connection was not provided - No negligence on the part of Electricity Board in not providing connection - Claim for compensation not maintainable.
Held, that after the execution of the agreement further steps would be taken for providing the electricity. This is provided in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and to the same effect is condition No. 20 of the Conditions. As she failed to execute the agreement as mentioned in the demand notice as required by the Conditions, the connection could not be provided. It is wrong on the part of the complainant to say that no intimation for executing the agreement was given inasmuch as the demand notice clearly shows that further proceedings will only be taken after the execution of the agreement and as the agreement was not executed the opposite parties cannot be said to be negligent in not providing the electric connection. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties in not providing electric connection. Question No.2 formulated hereinabove is decided against the complainant and in favour of the opposite parties. (Para 11)
Re. Question No.3: The complainant has claimed Rs. 8,50,000/~ as detailed in para 8 of the complaint. A consumer is entitled to compensation under S. 14(1)(d) of the Act only for the loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite-party. In this case we have already herd that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Apart from that there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record in regard to the proof of compensation. It is firmly established that compensation can only be awarded on certain well recognised principles and also for its quantification. In the absence of any material on record no compensation can .be awarded to the complainant. Question No.3 is decided in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant. (para 12)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
IMPORTANT POINT
An applicant who has submitted the application for providing her with electricity, is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act despite the fact that the electric connection has not been granted to her.
S.K.M. Lodha, President, - Smt. Pramila Garg(complainant) has filed this complaint against - 1) Secretary, RSEB, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur; 2) Executive Engineer, RSEB, Chittorgarh; and 3) Assistant Engineer, RSEB, Gangrar, District Chittorgarh under S.12 read with S.17(a)(i) of the Act before the State Commission on 19.2.1992 for the award of Rs. 8,50,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. and for a direction that the opposite parties may be directed to provide 25 HP light connection and power connection to the complainant. Besides this the amount in respect of the machines whose guarantee had expired according to the rules has been claimed. Briefly put the facts stated in the complaint are these :-
2. The complainant submitted on application for power connection on 18.8.1988. Her case is that the RSEB delayed release of connection, unnecessarily. As a result of which she could not start her industry on account of which she suffered loss. She has averred that on hire purchase system she purchased from National Small Industrial Corporation Ltd., New Delhi Branch Jaipur blomolding plant machine for preparing plastic containers in 1987. Previously the machine was installed at Manpura in a rented premises. Subsequently the machines were shifted to, village Putoli in the house of Mohan Lal from 1.8.1988. Thereafter she applied for a 25 HP power connection and light connection to the RSEB. No power connection was given to the complainant. She addressed letters, registered letters etc. to the higher officers complaining that power connection has not been provided to her. Despite that power connection was not given. After considerable time in 1989 demand notice was issued to the complainant. She deposited the entire amount as demanded. She complied with the marked conditions mentioned in the demand notice. But power connection was not given. Thereupon the complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties imp-leading National Small Industrial Corporation as opposite parties. That complaint was withdrawn as National Small Industrial Corporation was unnecessarily impleaded as opposite party. The complainant pressed for power connection but it was not provided until 31.1.1992. The complainant has alleged that checking officers of the National Industrial Small Industries Corporation came for checking the machines on 22.8.1993 which they checked arid they are pressing for the payment of the amount due. They there atened to auction the machines. She has alleged that the complainant is the consumer of opposite parties. As the power connection was not provided to the complainant as stated above the complaint was filed as stated above.
3. The opposite parties filed the version of the case contesting the complaint. It was submitted that on 18.8.1988 the complainant submitted an application for 25 HP power connection. It was also admitted that the amounts were deposited by the complainant according to the demand notice. But she did not complete the required formalities which were necessary for releasing the electric connection and did not execute agreement in favour of the RSEB despite letter and, therefore, connection was not provided to her. It was also pleaded that release of power connection depends on various factors. A new transformer was required to be installed as there was considerable load on the old transformer. A report was to be obtained from the AEN as regards the feasibility and financial facility and was sent to the Superintending Engineer as authority to give connection of the Executive Engineer and a demand notice was issued after completion of the feasibility and financial facility. After the sanction demand note was issued on 29.7.1989. Order for connection was also made on 30.8.1989 which provided that the complainant should execute agreement on Rs. 5/- stamp paper and thereafter connection will be provided. To this effect information was given to her. On the basis of these facts it was submitted that the complainant
